1951-05-24

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What are the total expenditures for (a) the purchase of a residence for the prime minister of Canada on Sussex street, Ottawa; (b) remodelling such residence to date; (c) who is the architect in charge of the work, and what is the basis of his remuneration?
2.	Is the remodelling completed and, if not, what is the estimated expenditure necessary to complete such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) The Edwards property at 24 Sussex street, which was expropriated for $140,000; (b) $299,200; (c) (i) Messrs. Allward and Gouinlock, architects, Toronto; (c) (ii) A percentage of the cost of the work as done by them.
2.	Remodelling completed.



INDIANS


Mr. Winkler:: 1.	Is the trend toward a reduction in the Indian tuberculosis mortality rate continuing?
2.	How many Indians were hospitalized during 1950 for (a) tuberculosis; (b) other conditions?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Yes. The death rate per 100,000 for all Canada in 1948 was 488-5 and in 1949 it was 399-6, a reduction of 18-2 per cent.
2.	(a) 2,558; (b) 18,497.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question of which I have not given him notice, but which relates to a conference which has just been	concluded.	Is	he in	aposition to inform us	whether as	a	result	ofthat conference we may expect to proceed during the present session with the legislation dealing with old age	pensions?Hon. Paul Martin	(Minister	of	National
Health and Welfare): As my hon. friend has stated, Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded 80709-213
a meeting with the ten provincial governments in respect of that phase of the proposal which has to do with the age group between sixty-five and sixty-nine. With regard to the government's program in connection with the legislation, as I announced at the conference yesterday, the government hopes to be able to implement its program during the course of the present year.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a supplementary question? I would point out first that the minister did not answer my question whether it was expected that the legislation would be dealt with during the present session. I would also ask the minister why the legislation affecting this age group from sixty-five to sixty-nine could not be dealt with at the same time.


Mr. Marlin:: Unless I have failed to understand my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said. I am sure that is all I could say under the circumstances at the present time.



GRAIN COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I sent him notice; but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant could take it as notice.
1.	According to the Canada Grain Act, the board of grain commissioners must make a report to the minister not later than January in each year. When can we expect to have the 1950 report of the board?
2.	Will the minister give consideration to having the 1950 report placed before the agriculture committee of the house for consideration, particularly for the hearing of evidence of producers organizations and other interested parties with regard to (a) grades, and (b) overages?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: With respect to the first question, the annual report of the board of grain commissioners is in the hands of the printer. I

Inquiries of the Ministry am unable to say when it will be back from the .printer, but I expect that it will be back very shortly.
With respect to the second question, I will draw the minister's attention to it, and it will be answered in due course.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: One of
the most reliable newspapers in Canada today carries an article to the effect that old Fort York in Toronto is in a deplorable condition. In view of the fact that the property was deeded to the city of Toronto on condition that Fort York be kept in first-class repair, and that not being done, apparently, according to the report, the Department of Public Works may have to take the property over-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works in connection with the matter of the flags that were in the anteroom of the memorial chamber during the visit of the President of France, to which reference was made the other day. Has he anything further to report?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. I hope to have a definite answer in the near future when I consult Mr. Speaker about it. That should be done in this case, since his jurisdiction comprises the parliament buildings. As soon as we come to a definite undertanding, or the moment I have Mr. Speaker's reaction to the request, I shall let my hon. friend know.


Mr. Graydon:: Is there a fair chance of an understanding about it?


Alphonse Fournier: I hope so.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue


and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.


Hon. Brooke Claxfon (Minisier of Naiional Defence):: When the committee was last sitting on this item, on Friday, May 11, we were considering the item appearing at page 269 of the book of estimates, civil salaries and wages, $3,489,842. Some hon. members asked for a break-down of this item so as to present the information in the same form as for other departments of the government. At that time I indicated that the information was not readily available in that form. These details were not put in our estimates, at the direction of the treasury board itself, for the reason, I understand, that the growth in the department was so great that any information given would be out of date and not very useful for the purposes of giving consideration to these estimates.
As to the usefulness or otherwise of the information, I think hon. members can judge for themselves when they receive the information which I now give them. As I pointed out at the time, when I was asked for this it took some time to secure the information. I was not aware, at the time I said that, just how much work would be required. The work was started the next day, Saturday, May 12, and the employees worked' over both week ends, but only this afternoon did I receive the information, and it is now here on the same basis as for other government departments. It covers a total of 28,154 civilian employees of the department. In a month or two it will be 30,000. Before the end of the year it will probably be 35,000.
To obtain this information it was necessary to run through the cards of all civilian employees in the department and then sort them out by classifications and wage groupings. Altogether a total of fourteen personnel were involved in the task for two weeks and over Saturdays and Sundays.
The information was asked for, and here it is. It was not possible before today to have it mimeographed or printed. I do not think it would be desirable or useful to have it done. If hon. members so desire, it might be printed as an appendix to Hansard, or in the Votes and Proceedings, but I would be the last person in the house to suggest that that be done, or to object if anyone wants it done.
This is not a static department. Since September the development in defence operation, measured in terms of money, has been,

I believe, greater than at any period of corresponding length during the second world war. Perhaps this may be brought home by recalling that during the fiscal year 1939-40 the defence expenditures were $125,679,888, whereas during the following year, 1940-41, they were $647,922,940. But the appropriations voted by parliament for the current fiscal year, 1950-51, which was still in effect when the special session was held last August, amounted to $425 million. Now, as I have
Supply-National Defence informed hon. members, there is available out of the money voted last year, and in the consolidated revenue fund for this year or sought by these estimates for the year 1951-52, a total of $1,879 million.
The change is made plain by considering the number of service and civilian personnel in each of the last four years. Perhaps I might put this short table on Hansard. I will give it to hon. members, though I think it ought to go on in tabular form. It is as follows:
1947-	48
1948-	49
1949-	50
1950-	51
Civilian Personnel
Services	Civil Servants	Prevailing Hate35,419	8,651	11,67041,676	8,917	11,90547,185	9,885	13,35268,427	13,544	14,610PercentageTotal Service	increaseTotal	and over previous	Civilian	Civilian	year20,321	55,740	20,822	62,498	1223,237	70,422	1328,154	96,581	37
At the present time the figure for service and civilian personnel in the three armed services, and the department, totals approximately 103,000, and I expect that by the end of the fiscal year it will total considerably over 125,000. Hon. members can see that the figures disclosed for other government departments which are relatively static, showing the number of civil servants in each classification, the salary range and the total for each, is very useful information indeed; but in the case of this department at this time it is of no more use than it would have been during any year of the second world war, when, so far as I know, such information was neither sought nor given. However we have obtained this information here. Here it is; and I shall have photostat copies for each of the parties concerned, as soon as they can be prepared. Meantime if anyone wishes to see these figures, I shall place them on the table so that they will be available.
I should like to indicate in a word or two the policy with regard to the employment of civilian personnel in the Department of National Defence. We find it very difficult indeed to estimate, with close accuracy, the number of civilians we shall be able to engage this year, or the number that will be needed. I suppose that will depend upon circumstances entirely outside the control of the department. This year we shall be working on the re-establishment of seven major air stations, and the creation of a large gunnery range on the northern boundary of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and in addition will be increasing the size, accommodation and operations of a large number of units. How much we can do will depend, in part, 86709-2131
upon what equipment we can obtain from the United States, upon events in Korea, and upon the rate of construction made possible by the supply of materials, labour and engineering plans. Upon these results will depend the number of civilian personnel we can usefully employ during the current fiscal year.
Our policy is to employ civilians in every position in which civilians could be properly employed in the event of war. That is, it is our policy to use just as small a number of service personnel as is possible on what may be called civilian occupations. I believe that, compared with other countries, we have succeeded in working that out to good advantage. Our proportion of service to civilian personnel is not far from what it is in the United Kingdom or the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it in the United Kingdom and the United States?


Brooke Claxton: It is about the same as in
our country.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you the figures?


Brooke Claxton: No, I have not, but I have
read them. The reason for this condition is twofold, the first being that civilians cost less than service personnel. The average cost of an other rank in the navy, army, or air force, including pay and allowances, pension, food, clothing, medical and dental services, transportation and other expenditures corresponding to those of a civilian wage or salary, is $3,200 a year. The corresponding expenditure in the case of a civilian doing similar work would average about $2,300 a year.
3338	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The second reason, however, is more important, and that is that we want just as large a proportion as possible of our service personnel to be engaged in training and operational duties, and we want to have as large a proportion as possible of service personnel-men, and now women-who are trained and physically fit and of an age suitable to perform duties appropriate to their rank and job throughout the first year of a general war.
This policy has enabled the Canadian forces, navy, army and air force, to be operational to at least as great as if not a greater extent than is found in most other countries, and yet at the same time to maintain the essential services, including communications, training and reserve units and so on, necessary in a country of this size, and to provide the basis for a maximum potential in the event of a general war.
The other day the hon. member for Nanaimo asked me the number of veterans who had had the advantage of veterans educational grants and university training, and who had been taken on in the armed forces. I found we had taken on some 2,600 veteran officers during the period since they might have had the advantage of a university training. We sent the names of those personnel to the Department of Veterans Affairs to see if they could verify from their records how many of these had been the product of the veterans educational grants provisions. We were told that could not be ascertained without going through the files of every one of these veteran officers, and also without having the names in full and, in the case of other ranks, the numbers, of the personnel employed. This would have been a heavy task for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I did not think the hon. member would want that department to go to so much trouble.


Mr. Pearkes:: If it is all that trouble, I
shall drop the question.


Brooke Claxton: However, I was able to find
that under our own plan of extending educational assistance to veterans who had already joined the active armed forces, or who had expressed the desire to join, there were some 800. This I suggest is a very good yield indeed from that source.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would those be persons in
the services who still received-


Brooke Claxton: No. This applies to a group whb had ceased to be in the services, who had gone to universities and whose university grants had run out. We either enlisted them or secured their undertaking to join the
[Mr. Claxton.i

armed forces, with commissions. We subsidized them throughout their final year or, in some few -cases, the last two years, and secured some 800 officers as a consequence. It was an extension of the veterans benefits in the case of men who had indicated their intention to join the regular forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: The figures given by the
minister are slightly confusing, not only because of the vast statistical data given, but because he seemed to wander away from the question originally asked. The question was asked with regard to departmental administration, civil salaries and wages, and the minister gave a total number of civilian employees of 1,220. I presume that those are mainly people located at headquarters. It will be noted that the figures reported on page 2963 of Hansard of May 11 deal with headquarters only, whereas the minister apparently covered the whole field.


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition asked the question with regard to each item, so I gave the answer in one place. Under the head of administration there are 149 permanent and 1,081 temporary, a total of 1,230. The total salaries amount to $3,393,842. In addition, under prevailing rates we have one permanent and 39 temporary, a total of 40, with an additional cost of $96,000. The total for salaries under administration is $3,489,842, which is the figure on page 269. Attached to this are the corresponding details under the heads of navy, army, air force and defence research.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am presuming we are
dealing now with the numbers given on page 2963?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: The other was simply
additional information which can be referred to as we go on?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: I presume we shall follow the same system which was agreed to at the last sitting and take each one of these items detail by detail and then pass the whole item at the end. I should like to refer briefly to the figures given on page 2963, which show 33 civilian personnel in the minister's office, 44 in the deputy minister's office, and 727 in the inspection service. I presume that the employees in the minister's and deputy ministers' offices are responsible for the preparation in final form of the estimates which have been submitted by the minister. Would those same personnel be responsible for advising the minister as to expenditures being made under the different items, and would they also point out to him that all the money had been expended under one

item but had not been expended under another so that, if necessary, changes could be made from one item to another?


Brooke Claxton: That would be ordinarily the function of the deputy minister and those advising him, particularly the associate deputy having to do with finance. They would work closely with the officials of the Department of Finance, the treasury board, the comptroller of the treasury and the services themselves.


George Randolph Pearkes: When the minister's attention has been called to the fact that one item has been fully expended and there are still demands under it, has he authority to take money from one item and transfer it to another? If so, where is the line drawn? For instance, the details on page 269 of the estimates show items covering civil salaries and wages and professional and special services. Can changes be made from one of those items to another?


Brooke Claxton: Not at all. We sometimes find that we are able to get more equipment than we expected, or that recruiting is better than we expected; that we are getting more men and that the need for pay and allowances is increased. The deputy minister, with the support of the service concerned, will submit the case for my attention. It is then sent to the treasury board, where it is looked into by their officials. If it is approved by the treasury board, we can proceed.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no authority for
making changes?


Brooke Claxton: None.


George Randolph Pearkes: So that these various amounts which we pass hold good unless the treasury board grants authority to make a change?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: This brings out the value of asking questions and finding out details of expenditures in connection with each of these items, so that we may know exactly where the money is being spent and have the assurance that it cannot be switched unless referred to the treasury board.


Mr. Fair:: On May 10, as reported on page 2919 of Hansard, I asked the minister what provision had been or was being made for housing accommodation for the wives and families of men attending the Wainwright camp. On that occasion and at other times previously I pointed out that there was considerable agitation to have something done about housing. I pointed out also that the town of Wainwright had provided school and hospital accommodation as well as water and sewer facilities, but they wanted something done about housing. There just was not
Supply-National Defence enough housing in a general way to take care of these people. I notice that an appeal was made recently by the board of trade to the people of the town, and only nine offers of accommodation for the wives and families of servicemen were received. The situation there should have immediate attention.
I noted a little while ago that something like $2 million is to be spent at Rockclifie to provide housing accommodation. If Wainwright is to be a permanent camp, something should be done. I should like to know what has been done up to the present time and what is contemplated for the near future.


Brooke Claxton: I suggest that this question might properly come under the head of army on page 271, but since the hon. member asked it in the general discussion and I omitted to answer, perhaps I might do so now. It was not our intention to have Wainwright an all year round training camp. For one thing, and I say this with all respect to the hon. member, it is one of the coldest places in Canada. During Exercise Sweetbriar the temperature went to 58 below and the troops were living out in tents. It has a considerable snowfall as well.
It is an exceedingly good training area during the summer, and it was our intention to use it as a summer training camp for the active and reserve forces. To that end it was intended to make only a limited number of permanent improvements. It was intended also to have a limited amount of Arctic and sub-Arctic winter training done during the winter months for which we would not want married quarters. However, our intention, with regard to this camp has changed. It will be necessary to provide accommodation there for a larger number of men. In the first place, we plan to make it a camp which will be suitable for occupation by 5,000 officers and men, about a brigade group, and perhaps later to develop it further. It is the largest single training area we have in Canada with a very suitable terrain for training in summer, but unsuitable for general training in winter. It has 125,000 acres, or about 600 square miles. At the present time, therefore, our program does not include any provision for married quarters there, but in view of the development in our plans which has come about in the last few weeks or months we are reconsidering the situation as to married quarters, not only at Wainwright but also at other camps of a similar type that are being or will be established at places like Gimli, Portage la Prairie, Macdonald, Clares-holm, and of course the big area at Lac la Biche, as well as at Penhold. All that is being re-examined in the light of further developments.

Supply-National Defence


Robert Fair: Have any representations been made during the past two or three weeks with reference to housing accommodation? The minister pointed out the temperature may go down to 58 below zero in the winter, but we also have weather there in the summer that is not suitable for wives and families to live out in the open. We should not treat the wives and families of our officers and men in that fashion.


Brooke Claxton: It is intended to be a highly operational camp where we give personnel more advanced training, although not exclusively for that purpose. Generally speaking in those circumstances it is desirable to put men there for limited periods of time and not to move their families there. That is entering into our considerations. In the same way it is quite unsuitable to have married accommodation for students at corps schools or at air stations, but it is desirable that we have it for the administrative and training staff.
As to representations, I have received two or three letters from the board of trade, the mayor, I believe, and possibly others over the last year or two. I have also received representations from Senator Stambaugh and several others to the same effect, advocating that we proceed in this way.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the meeting of this committee on May 11 I asked the minister a question which is recorded on page 2973 of Hansard. It reads as follows:


George Harris Hees: What is the name and the salary of the temporary director of public relations which the minister mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: The name is William Dumsday. He is not a temporary director, he is the director of public relations. His salary is $6,000, but he is still a temporary civil servant. He was a wing commander during the war and did the same kind of work with the air force.
On looking at the public accounts for 1950 I find that Mr. W. H. Dumsday, of the Department of National Defence, is listed as receiving a salary of $6,600. The first question I want to ask the minister is whether Mr. Dumsday received the increase which most civil servants received this year.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, he received it.


George Harris Hees: How much did that increase amount to?


Brooke Claxton: I have not the figure for his increase. It would not be ten per cent at that level. His present salary is $6,780.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the minister what the explanation is for giving a com-


pletely inaccurate answer to a very straightforward and simple question. Can he answer that?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly. I asked the official in front of me; the official, speaking from memory, gave me the answer, and I gave it to the committee. I have filed the correct answer.


George Harris Hees: The correct answer was filed only because I brought up the question just now. I think this brings out the importance of our going into every single item of the estimates one by one, and perhaps if necessary checking every answer with other records such as the public accounts. Does the minister feel that the kind of answer he gave me, which was more than ten per cent wrong, is the kind of answer members of the committee should receive to questions they put to him? Would he mind answering that?


Brooke Claxton: I am not infallible, particularly when I ask an official, he gives me the answer and I give it, incidentally, at about eleven o'clock or 11.01. I might have said that I would wait and give the answer later. In future I shall have to do that, although it will take a longer time, and I do not think the public profit therefrom will be very great.


Mr. Fulton:: This seems to me to bring to the fore a question I wanted to ask the minister with respect to the procedure in dealing with these estimates. I do not wish to revive a debate which has taken place a number of times as to the extent to which a committee of the house can go into defence policy, or even the extent to which this committee should go into defence policy. However, I want to refer to the question whether the defence estimates, the financial details, and the financial results of the defence estimates should not be studied by a committee other than this committee of the house, to effect the saving of time to which the minister himself has just referred. He has indicated he doubts whether the public benefit will be promoted by the kind of detailed checking and inquiry which the hon. member for Broadview has indicated he feels should be made.


Brooke Claxton: I can answer that right off by suggesting-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not finished the question yet, so I do not know how the minister can answer it.


Brooke Claxton: I thought you had.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am sorry. It may well be argued-


Brooke Claxton: Then, Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. This matter has already been decided by this committee at this session. It has also already been decided by the house to refer these estimates to the committee of supply, and I suggest that the hon. member's remarks are out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Surely that is not the kind of suggestion that is going to help to advance the discussion of these estimates. There is no time during the session when it is not open to the ministry to recommend to the house that appropriate steps be taken for the reference of items to another committee. There is no reason within the rules or practice that would prevent the minister at this point from moving that the committee rise and report progress, if it can be called that, and then indicating that he had asked the committee to rise in order to move that the items be referred to such a committee as deals with similar items in the case of the Department of External Affairs. I simply rise to point out that the answer the minister has just given is inconsistent both with the rules and with the practice.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the point of order? The leader of the opposition surely has not overlooked the fact that the house has referred these estimates to the committee of supply. We got into supply by order of the house, and, having done so, it is not proper for us to do anything but pass an item, or reduce an item, or rise and report progress.
In the second place, on May 11, as reported at page 2942 of Hansard, a motion was made that the committee rise and report progress pending reference of defence expenditures to a select committee. On that motion there was a	vote, and the
committee itself voted it down. That being so, that matter cannot be further discussed by this committee. So I submit that on both grounds any reference to any method of dealing with defence estimates except the method parliament has decided upon and the committee has confirmed is entirely out of order, completely useless, and a waste of the time of the committee.


George Alexander Drew: I find it difficult to believe that the minister is putting forward this argument at all seriously. After all, these items have come before the committee on previous occasions, and the motion has been made that the committee rise and report progress. The minister is now suggesting that once a motion of that kind has been made it cannot be repeated. The motion to rise and report progress can be and is made over and over
Supply-National Defence again. I am pointing out that if the minister became convinced that it would be the wiser and more sensible course, as we believe it would, to have these estimates referred to a committee, it would only be necessary for him to move that we rise and report progress, and then, with the Speaker in the chair, move that these items be referred to such a committee as deals with similar items in the case of similar departments. That was the point I made, and that has not been answered in any way by what the minister has said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order may I indicate that the motion on May 11, at page 2942 of Hansard, to which the minister has referred, suggested that the estimates be referred for detailed study by a select committee. The point I wished to bring to the minister's attention was that the motion to refer these estimates to a standing committee, namely the standing committee on banking and commerce, has in no way been decided by the motion to which reference has been made. I say this particularly in view of the fact that in the other place the estimates of all departments are referred to a committee. There is no objection to the estimates going before the committee on finance of the Senate, one of the standing committees of that body which is now examining deputy ministers in connection with their estimates. No objection is raised by any department to the procedure being followed there. It seems to me the only committee of this house that would be qualified to deal with the estimates in that way so far as this house is concerned is the standing committee on banking and commerce.
My purpose in rising was to ask the minister, in view of the fact that in the other place estimates are referred to the standing committee on finance, whether he would object to having these estimates referred to our standing committee on banking and commerce, particularly since the minister himself raised the point that the type of questioning which we feel should be pursued in connection with these estimates, and which I think the public feel should be pursued to get all the details of expenditures-and the last details, if necessary-would not be conducive to the public benefit. If that is the feeling-and there may be an argument in favour of it in committee of the whole- why not refer the estimates to the banking and commerce committee, in exactly the same way as the estimates are referred to and examined by the committee on finance in the other place?

Supply-National Defence


The Chairman:: Does any other hon. member wish to speak on civil salaries and wages? I understood we had agreed to proceed with this item by item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked the minister a question. The hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out that the deputy minister, whose salary is paid under this vote, is responsible for the estimates. The hon. member for Broadview raised a question in connection with the salary of another official who is paid out of the civil salaries vote. The minister said he did not think this type of questioning was proper or useful in this committee, in that it might involve delay which would hold up the public business. Therefore I made the suggestion that we should have the estimates referred to the committee on banking and commerce so that we would not hold up public business, and I would like an answer from the minister on that point.


Brooke Claxton: We have already decided to
have the estimates dealt with in this committee of supply. I do not know why hon. members want to defeat the will of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking the minister what his objection is to the suggestion-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that these estimates be
referred to the banking and commerce committee, a question which we have not decided. We did have a motion that they be referred to a special or select committee, which motion I agree was not adopted. I am now pointing out the procedure followed in the other place. I am referring to an objection by the minister to the type of question being asked and the delay involved. The minister himself has furnished the best argument as to *why this whole matter should be re-examined. If he will look at it I submit he will find that we have not made any binding decision in this matter, so if he will I should like him to answer the question I have raised.


Brooke Claxton: I would like to get on with the discussion of these estimates which hon. gentlemen have been talking about for a long time. I would like to get on with that discussion in accordance with the rules of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has just objected that too many delays would arise from the procedure that is being followed. In reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview the minister said he did not think the delay in obtaining answers to questions of that type would be conducive to the public good. He says he is anxious to proceed with the discussion of these estimates, but he has also told us he does not

want this type of discussion. It seems the minister has made up his mind to get his estimates through in the way which will permit him to give the least information, because if the estimates were referred to a committee he would have to give more information than apparently he is willing to give.


Alphonse Fournier: The last time these estimates were before the committee the hon. member for Nanaimo became impatient, I think, and asked whether we were through with the general discussion and if we could determine the procedure we would follow. Right at the adjournment it was agreed that at the next sitting we would take the details of these estimates on page 269. Today the hon. member for Nanaimo rose and said he believed it was understood that we should proceed with the details on page 269. No one raised any objection; if I recall correctly the Minister of National Defence replied in the affirmative. Now I would like to know if the hon. member for Kamloops agrees with the hon. member for Nanaimo. We have to follow some directive; we have to come to some decision, and that decision has been arrived at twice since we began to discuss these estimates. The hon. member for Kamloops wants to talk before the banking and commerce committee. That committee is sitting regularly; he can go there and present any argument'he wishes. Now, however, we are in committee of supply, following the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and perhaps he would have enough influence to pacify the hon. member for Kamloops on this matter and let us deal with the estimates in the ordinary course.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege, the Minister of Public Works has suggested that I showed impatience. I want to assure him through you, Mr. Chairman, that my patience is inexhaustible, and that I do not think I have shown impatience at any time in this house. In accordance with the rules I asked at the commencement of the discussion this afternoon whether we were going to proceed detail by detail, in the hope that we might make progress. But there are a lot of questions, as I pointed out, which have to be asked under this item of civil salaries. I have several more questions I want to ask under this item, because, as has been pointed out, this is our only chance of examining these estimates and advising the people of Canada on the expenditure of this money which the minister has already said will be allocated in definite ways which cannot be changed except by reference to the treasury board. I do not think the opposition would

be carrying out its duties properly unless it went through these estimates item by item.
I am inclined to think that the word "progress" is not parliamentary any longer; and because no progress is being made, it has been suggested that another system be followed. If there is any other system than the one I have suggested, I am only too pleased to follow it.


Alphonse Fournier: Never were we ever so close, Mr. Chairman. We agree. The difference does not arise between the hon. member for Nanaimo and myself. The difference is between what the hon. member for Kamloops wants us to do and what the hon. member for Nanaimo wishes to have done. It was decided

and I do not think the hon. member would contradict me-that we take the details, found at page 269, of the national defence estimates. Now the young hon. member for Kamloops is not satisfied. That is why I suggested a conference between those two members of the same party who disagree on this question, in order that they may come to some understanding so that we may make progress.
The hon. member says no progress is being made. If every time we bring forward a detailed item it is suggested that we go before some committee of the house and we spend twenty minutes or half an hour discussing that point, I cannot see that we shall ever make any progress. If the hon. member will just look at the details, he can see what is given, and then with all his cross-examination he can get those he wants. If he does that-and I think the hon. member for Nanaimo does it well-I think he will be more appreciated even in his own party.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works, whose genial approach to the problems of the house usually advances matters more than has just been done in these last remarks of his, has obviously missed the point that was being made by the hon. member for Kamloops. .There is no difference between the point of view which has been expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops and that of the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Alexander Drew: What happened arose out of the fact that the hon. member for Broadview pointed out that, to a question as to the salary of one individual civil servant certainly covered by the very item under discussion, namely, "civil salaries and wages", he had received the answer that the salary was $6,000. He then referred to the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1950, which show that up to that time the civil
Supply-National Defence servant in question had received $6,600. I might point out that since that time there have been substantial increases, and that unless there was discrimination against this particular individual, he is probably receiving substantially more than that now. When asked for an explanation as to the discrepancy between those figures, the minister gave an utterly unsatisfactory answer which implied that this was not the kind of thing which was going to produce useful results. If there is to be a complete disregard of the necessity for explanation of a discrepancy in regard to a figure-it is true that in this instance it is only $6,000-*	[DOT]


Mr. Croll:: 


George Alexander Drew: The basic figure under consideration is $6,000; because the hon. member for Broadview then said "ten per cent". If there is a ten per cent margin of error all the way through here, it becomes quite a serious matter when we get into single items of $30 million or more, as we shall be doing in a moment; or perhaps that is optimistic, and I should say that we shall be considering it some time.


An hon. Member:: Within a few days.


George Alexander Drew: We shall get there much more quickly, however, if an attempt is not made to create the impression that we are getting all the information when we do not get the information that is asked for when particular items are discussed in this way.
There is no difference between the view expressed by the hon. member for Nanaimo and that expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops. The hon. member for Nanaimo has made it perfectly clear that he too believes that a committee should deal with these estimates and get the kind of information that we should have, without our taking up the time of the committee in trying to ascertain why inaccurate answers have been given by the Minister of National Defence.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think it would be a good thing for me to read what was said by the deputy chairman, and what was agreed upon, on May 11, as reported at page 2943 of Hansard. The deputy chairman then said:
We had a discussion on civil defence, and the consent of the house had been given earlier to this type of procedure, which has been interrupted by the motion which has just been defeated. Is it the wish of the committee to follow from now on the procedure which was agreed upon earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps I should point
out to the committee that the way I propose to call these items will be in the order in which they appear on page 269 of the estimates, under the various headings, the first one being departmental administration, including inspection services and
3344	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence civil defence; the second one being imperial war graves commission; the third being navy; the fourth, army; the lifth. air; and the sixth, defence research and development. This is item 245 as detailed under these various headings. Is that satisfactory to the hon. members?


George Alexander Drew: Agreed.
Some hen. Members: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Therefore, I will now call the first section of these detailed sums of item 245, appearing under the heading "Departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence." These details appear on page 269.
The first sub-item is actually what we are considering-"Civil salaries and wages".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to point out that in the course of examining item 245, civil salaries and wages, the Minister of National Defence himself suggested that the method being followed in the production of answers would impose a delay which he felt would be detrimental to the interests of the country and the progress of the house. It was because he said that this does not appear to be the best way to deal with it, when we were making an effort to deal with it in that way which had been suggested, that I said: All right, if you say that, and if you make that point, then how about referring it to the banking and commerce committee?
That is how this matter arose. We were trying to follow the only method open to us, and in the course of the discussion the Minister of National Defence said that we were wasting too much time. In effect, that is what he said. That is why I have suggested that the estimates be referred to the committee I have mentioned.
It is nonsense for the Minister of Public Works to say that the hon. member for Nanaimo and I are in disagreement. We were following the method suggested and were considering the details one by one. In the course of the examination, the Minister of National Defence suggested that this method will not work, that it is too wasteful of time. I then said: Very well; let us refer it to another place. The Minister of Public Works will find that it is his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, whose attitude has given rise to this discussion today and who suggested that we should depart from the agreed procedure.
I still feel that we might have from the Minister of National Defence an answer on the merits. In view of the detail which is being asked for here, and the care with which the replies have to be checked-and I feel that he is on quite proper ground in saying that-if he feels that that procedure will necessitate such delay as to hold up unduly the work of the house, then I should like to
[The Chairman.]

hear from him on the merits of the question why it would not be proper and expeditious to refer the estimates to a standing committee of the house.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, we cannot be moving at every sitting on these estimates to report progress and then have a motion made to refer them to a special committee or to a standing committee. I think I would follow the advice of one of the wise men in the house on these questions, namely, the hon. member for Nanaimo. He is ready to put many questions, if some of his young colleagues would give him a chance to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is just nonsense, Mr. Chairman. We put a question-


Alphonse Fournier: Can the hon. member not find another word?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: I should like the hon. member to withdraw that word. I never use it at any time. He seems to have the habit of thinking that he has the monopoly on sense and that everyone else lacks it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister's suggestion that we were not following the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo is so far from the fact as to have the appearance of nonsense; we were following that procedure.


Alphonse Fournier: That is the only word the hon. member knows.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We were following that procedure, and the Minister of National Defence himself suggested that to follow that procedure would be to waste the time of the committee. If the Minister of Public Works will reconcile the attitude of the Minister of National Defence with his own attitude, as he has just put it forward, we might make progress.


Alphonse Fournier: Is the hon. member trying to interpret what I said?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we follow along the suggestions made by the Minister of Public Works, his colleague says that we are wasting time. I suggest that the two ministers get together and work out the best procedure. When they do that we might make some progress.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. Speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. Are there any other questions on civil salaries and wages?


Mr. Harkness:: Yes. Having done a little checking up in Hansard for the last two or three days during which this discussion has

proceeded, and also in public accounts, I find that the matter brought up by the hon. member for Broadview is just one of several in which there are either discrepancies or apparent discrepancies between the information contained in public accounts and that given by the minister in committee of supply. I should like to ask him about two or three of these.
At page 2969 of Hansard the hon. member for Nanaimo asked this question:
Is there any other officer under this heading who is drawing a salary of $10,000? For instance, is there a controller of the inspection services? If so, what is his salary?


Brooke Claxton: His salary is $8,500.
I refer to page N-49 of the public accounts for 1950 and I see that W. G. Mills, controller general of inspection services, receives $12,000 instead of $8,500. What is the explanation of that?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be very glad to give it. Mr. W. G. Mills was at that time the controller general of inspection services at a salary of $12,000. At the present time P. S. Conroy is director of inspection services at a salary of $8,500.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This Mr. Conroy whose
name appears further down on the list on page N-49 at $6,300 is the same man, I presume?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has been promoted to this job at this lesser salary?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why the difference in salary between $12,000 that the job formerly carried and $8,500 now being paid?


Brooke Claxton: In order to save money.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there a scale of $8,500 to $12,000? Is that what the minister means, or is this-


Brooke Claxton: No; this is a special appointment. The salary is fixed by the treasury board on the recommendation of the civil service commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A little further down on the same page, the hon. member for Nanaimo asked about the assistant deputy ministers, and the minister says there is one assistant who get $8,000. I see one assistant listed in the public accounts at $6,900. Does that mean his salary has been increased $1,100 in the year?


Brooke Claxton: There is only one assistant deputy minister. He receives a salary of $8,000 per annum.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: He is listed in public
accounts for 1950 at page N-49, Mr. Sharpe, $6,900. My question was:	Has this salary
been increased by $1,100 in the last year?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Was that saving money
also, as the minister intimated in the last instance?


Brooke Claxton: Making an adjustment in
accordance with recommendation of the royal commission on salaries for the senior civil servants, and which I think has been long overdue in a great many cases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then a little later on the hon. member for Nanaimo said:
Having dealt with that, how many special advisers has the minister?
The minister replied:
None. I beg your pardon, yes. Engineer Rear Admiral Stephens-
And so forth. It seems to me that either in the public accounts committee or somewhere else I received information that there were special advisers or special assistants to the minister. Probably one of them is General Worthington. He is listed here as a special adviser, but last week I think the minister said he was no longer acting in that capacity, since he has gone over to civil defence.


Brooke Claxton: That probably would be one of the cases. In the department he was called co-ordinator of civil defence, but since February 23 he has been transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any other special assistant now?


Brooke Claxton: No, there is no special
assistant; there is an executive assistant to the minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who is he, and what is his salary?


Brooke Claxton: Paul Pare, $5,600.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then I notice a man listed here as B. B. S. Campbell, salary $8,300. Then the following words appear:	"including
terminable allowance, $1,400". This note appears in public accounts at page N-49. Is he still on the staff? Does the phrase "terminable allowance" mean that he has been discharged? What is his job?


Brooke Claxton: He is still on the staff. He has to do with real estate, acquisition and disposal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there an official position called co-ordinator of construction?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Works and construction. He has to deal with real estate, works construction, for the whole department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought aU construction and so forth was handled by the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, but somebody has to send submissions and contact the men of the Canadian Commercial Corporation; also the department decides what it should do and then asks the Canadian Commercial Corporation or Defence Construction Limited to do the job for us on our instructions. But we have quite a considerable staff, both in the department and in the services, engaged in deciding where we shall go, what we shall do, looking after inspections to a certain extent, and also of course supervising the design of buildings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister means that this Mr. Campbell is to some extent an architect, or carries on work of that kind?


Brooke Claxton: No. As far as I recall he was a former official of the Canadian Bank of Commerce engaged in construction, and since the war has been engaged in this operation for the department. He is, I think, considered, and very rightly so, highly skilled in matters of real estate, construction, planning and the like. He looked after this for the Canadian Bank of Commerce, I understand, and has had a great deal to do with this work in the department. That is a very large part in the department's operation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is his salary at the present time without this terminable allowance?


Brooke Claxton: It is $8,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is this terminable allowance? Why is he to be paid that?


Brooke Claxton: The reason for that is that his work is considered to be a very great responsibility, and a job that really justified a higher rate than this. The decision was that it should not be a rate above that of an assistant deputy minister, for which the current salary is $8,000. However, in view of the magnitude of the operations, the amount involved, and the great skill shown in handling them by Mr. Campbell it was established that he should require an additional allowance of $800 terminable on his ceasing to fill that appointment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister mean by that that he will continue to get this extra $1,400 every year above the salary of $8,000?


Brooke Claxton: No; this $8,000 includes the terminable allowance. It was $6,600 salary plus $1,400 terminable allowance. They have

now been consolidated into a salary of $8,000, which is the same salary as that of an assistant deputy minister.


Mr. Fleming:: I understand the minister,
in the course of the statement he made earlier, indicated that in the inspection service under this item there are 727 persons employed. I should like information on the item. First of all, are they all civilian personnel, and will the minister indicate the particular type of inspection service they render?
May I say in connection with that subject that this, I suggest, will call upon the minister for some indication of the way in which this inspection service is carried out vis-a vis the inspection service rendered previously by Canadian Commercial Corporation and now, under the new set-up of the Department of Defence Production, by Defence Construction Limited. Are any of those persons engaged in the inspection service in connection with the acquisition of property? Does their inspection extend that widely, and what is their relationship to the inspection service carried on by those charged with the negotiation of contracts, and the acquisition of properties or supplies under those contracts?


Brooke Claxton: The employees of the inspection service listed here are all civilians. They inspect all equipment of every kind purchased for the department, or the armed services, which requires inspection-except in a few and rather limited number of cases where an outside inspection firm is hired. They have to do with the inspection of ships, aircraft, armament, ammunition, food, clothing, barrack-room stores and everything else used by the armed forces.
With regard to their relationship to Canadian Commercial Corporation, while they work closely with that organization

or with Defence Construction Limited-they do not duplicate any of the work being done. The inspection of construction by architects or engineers is done by architects or engineers engaged by Canadian Commercial Corporation or Defence Construction Limited, but -acceptable to this department, reporting directly to it, and working very closely with it.
In the case of operational buildings inspection is done by members of the armed forces themselves. In addition to the civilian personnel to which I have referred, a considerable number of service personnel are engaged in inspection. Our effort is to integrate the two, so that they will be kept in line with each other. We hope to increase that so that we will have service personnel, who represent the user, working closely with civilian personnel in the inspection service. I should

like to add, as I said two weeks ago, that the inspection of equipment is carried out at every stage, so that at a plant such as that of the A. V. Roe Company there will be a large number of inspectors inspecting every part of each plane as it is made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it then that it is clear
that none of the 727 persons referred to is engaged in any respect in connection with the inspection of properties or defence projects. They are all on other forms of equipment or supplies; is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: They would be involved in
the inspection of materials entering into construction which was undertaken by a department of the services themselves. We would ordinarily employ architects or outside engineers, through Canadian Commercial Corporation and Defence Construction Limited, to inspect finished properties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a point in that connection that is not entirely clear. The minister has indicated that these 727 persons are all civilians. We are aware of the fact, of course, that some of the military personnel in the department do carry out the inspection of construction, and give their approval before a construction project is finally assumed by the department. In other cases professional persons or firms outside the department are engaged for the purpose of supervising and checking construction projects. But I understood from the minister's earlier statement that the kind of inspection that was carried out by the department was carried out exclusively by military personnel. I had taken from his earlier answer that none of the 727 persons has anything to do with the inspection of properties-that is to say, construction projects and properties. The minister's last answer leaves me in doubt as to whether that is the situation.
A considerable number of these 727 apparently are engaged in the inspection of equipment and materials coming in. Then he went on to speak about materials entering into construction projects.


Brooke Claxton: I went on to speak about materials entering into construction projects undertaken by the armed services, or the department itself. There are a limited number of construction projects, and that number is becoming fewer and fewer, in which we do a job of adding to a building here or there, without letting it out as a contract. In those cases the materials and construction would be inspected either by service personnel or by a member of our inspection service. We would not go out and, in addition, hire an architect or a contractor through Canadian Commercial Corporation to make that inspection.
Supply-National Defence


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, one other point, which is suggested by a reference made in another place. Has there been any change within the last year or two in the method of carrying out this inspection service, either with reference to construction projects on the one hand or the inspection of supplies and materials on the other?


Brooke Claxton: I would have to make an inquiry to ascertain that. There must be changes every day in the technique and operation of inspection, particularly as the type of equipment is changing. For example we are now making a three-inch 50-calibre naval gun, requiring a large number of inspections. But that work is supplemented at Sorel Industries Limited by inspection made by United States naval personnel. How much they co-operate and how they interchange their information, I do not know but I can find out. There must be many developments of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the point; it is a question of some change within the last year or so in inspection procedure, or the method followed in the department in reference to inspection. The point is as to whether that has any bearing upon the respective functions of the Department of National Defence on the one hand and Canadian Commercial Corporation or the Department of Defence Production on the other.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid the hon. member has not made his inquiry sufficiently clear to enable me to understand what he is getting at, or what information he wants to have.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Information in regard to the inspection procedure now obtaining either in the minister's department, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, the Department of Defence Production, Defence Construction Limited, or its predecessor, Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Brooke Claxton: I should think that there
would be steady development in the practice. I do not know personally of any major change in procedure and none has come to my attention or to the attention of the officers before me. I shall make inquiries, however.
Then with regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview, I recognize that I was in error and I am sorry to have made the error. The reason for making it was that Mr. Dumsday was appointed to his position at a salary range of $6,000 to $6,600. The official before me, speaking from memory, told me that he was at the minimum of the salary range, or $6,000. Instead
3348	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence he was appointed at the maximum of his range, or $6,600. When the general increase for civil servants was passed his classification was increased to $6,180-$6,780, and Mr. Dumsday's salary was increased to that maximum. His increase in consequence of the general increase was only $180.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should
like to ask a question following that of the hon. member for Eglinton in connection with inspection and the sharing of duties of inspection. I am rather troubled by the number of agencies engaged in this work. I am rather reminded of the old rhyme:
Larger fleas have smaller fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em;
And these again have other fleas And so ad infinitum.
I do not minimize the importance of inspection because I realize it is a most serious matter. First we have national defence with its inspectors-I notice that the minister has said that he is hoping to increase the number of service personnel working on inspection along with the civilian personnel-then we have Canadian Commercial Corporation, although I understand that their status is to be reduced somewhat. Then we have defence production and defence construction, and then Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation acting as special advisers. It is almost inevitable when you have so many agencies employed at the one task that duplication occurs.
We had some rather frank and clear statements from the officials in the public accounts committee as to what the practice used to be. We are not allowed to come up to date in the public accounts committee. Would the minister indicate, first, whether he is satisfied that these duties are well apportioned and, second, if there has been any overlapping?
Take the case where the defence department orders aeroplanes. I understand that first they would determine what they want. Then they pass that information on to some other agency, I suppose defence production. Then they would have to follow it through to see that they get what they want as to both specification and quality. The Minister of Defence Production told us the other day that that department plays a part in this matter, and I should like to quote his statement, as reported on page 3099 of Hansard of May 16:
The engineering staff of defence production is small, but engineering services available to Defence Construction Limited are retained for the purpose of inspecting construction.
My understanding is that that refers exactly to what the minister said, to various
[Mr. Claxton.)

types of construction and not to munitions of war. I come back to my question and ask the minister to indicate the division of duties among these agencies. I cannot say that it is too clear, but I should like to know whether the minister is satisfied with what they are doing. Let us take the question of aeroplanes. Will he indicate the division of the functions of the Department of National Defence, defence production and its ancillary companies?


Brooke Claxton: I should like to ask the hon. member who has just expressed these vague fears if he knows of any reason for having them. If he knows of any failure of the services engaged in inspection to do their job properly I should like to hear about it. I have not heard about it and therefore I can assure him that I know of no reason for expressing dissatisfaction with the present situation. I hear of all cases that involve trouble, and I have heard of no case.
The hon. member asks me if I am satisfied. I am never satisfied with anything because I believe that everything can be improved. But we like to have constructive proposals upon which we can base improvement. This situation has been explained twice already, and I think again in the public accounts committee, but I shall try to do it again. There is no confusion.
The inspection services, acting for the Department of National Defence and the three armed services, navy, army and air force, either themselves or by means of outside inspectors in a small number of cases who are engaged because they have special experience and facilities and equipment which we have not-for example, in road building-inspect everything that we buy that requires inspection. That is, almost everything.
With regard to construction, that is done by architects or engineers engaged by Canadian Commercial Corporation or Defence Construction Limited, but with our recommendation of the persons involved. But at almost every stage on important undertaking, there are service personnel involved also.
Let us trace an order for aircraft from the beginning to the end. In the case of the F-86E we negotiated with the United States government for the acquisition of the right to make the aircraft in Canada. Air force experts were sent down to the North American Aviation Company plant at Los Angeles where they studied the production of the aircraft. They were joined by representatives of Canadair Limited who also studied the production of the aircraft. They

then brought back to Canada not only plans and blueprints but jigs and dies and perhaps the special inspection instruments required.
Then construction was started at Canadair Limited. Throughout the whole operation representatives of the armed forces would be present in three or four capacities, one being that of inspection. There would also be civilian inspectors who would inspect every part as it is made. Then finally the armed forces, with such civilian assistance of the inspection services as they may require, would inspect and flight-test the performance of the finished product. This works the same as it does in other countries. It applies the principle of inspection by the consumer for the consumer, and we think it is a good arrangement. If anyone suggests any improvement we will be very glad indeed to consider it.


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister has raised the question of examination of aircraft as an example of the inspection service mentioned, would he take this opportunity to deal with a question that was asked earlier as reported at pages 3027 and 3028 of Hansard? It has to do with a press report of May 15 that approximately 1,000 planes are to be borrowed from the United States. Since this would tie in with the question of inspection, I would think it would be appropriate to explain how this is being handled, what inspection methods are being devised, and what the actual number of aircraft is that is being brought in in this way.


Brooke Claxton: I think it would be a good thing to deal with civil salaries and wages at this time.


George Alexander Drew: It is interesting how quickly the minister decides that we should only deal with salaries and wages after he has just used as an illustration the inspection of aircraft. Since he has dealt with inspection of aircraft, I suggest it would be appropriate that he explain whether the same inspection groups will deal with the inspection of the aircraft that are being brought in, and which for obvious reasons would require perhaps an even more exacting type of inspection.


Brooke Claxton: The question of the leader of the opposition extended far beyond the realm of inspection. In the first instance he asked about the whole deal, but I do not mind when I answer these things, and I will try to do my best. But I do think it is a good thing to proceed in an orderly way. With respect to this matter, these aircraft do not number
1,000	but 100. They are borrowed from the United States. They are the T-6, which is the Harvard with modifications. They are
Supply-National Defence being delivered at Trenton by the United States air force, and are in good working condition. Any inspection that is done on them is done by service personnel, and is largely in the nature of test by flight. These aircraft are aircraft with which we are very familiar.
At the end of the year we will return to the United States 100 equivalent aircraft, and whatever inspection arrangements are provided with regard to one lot of aircraft will apply equally to the other. We will get from the United States aircraft in good working condition. We will return to them aircraft in good working condition. The operation has just started. I have not had brought to my attention details of inspection in addition to anything I have said. If it is desired I can get it.


George Harris Hees: What are the qualifications for these civilian inspectors? I am particularly interested in four categories of manufacture: guns, small arms, aircraft and motor vehicles. I should like to know what kind of qualifications a man has to have before he can be an inspector employed by the Department of National Defence to inspect in plants manufacturing these various articles of war, and also what kind of salaries are paid to those performing these various services?


Brooke Claxton: The appointments are all made by the civil service commission in accordance with classifications that have been established by them. They were worked out during the war in connection with the joint inspection board, and have been changed from time to time since. Of course they are also in accordance with the views of our department. The salary ranges vary. They are scattered all the way through. For example, for an engineer grade 1 the range is $2,700 to $3,240; engineer grade 2, $2,976 to $3,888; engineer grade 3, $3,888 to $4,524; engineer grade 4, $4,272 to $4,896. Then there is inspector grade 1, $4,584 to $5,208; inspector of stores grade 1, $2,064 to $2,496; grade 2, $2,568 to $2,904; grade 3, $2,976 to $3,444; grade 4, $3,444 to $3,888.
Then there is technical officer, grade 2, $2,904	to	$3,576;	technical	officer	grade	3,$3,576	to	$4,212;	technical	officer	grade	4,$3,888	to	$4,524;	technical	officer	grade	5,$4,272	to	$4,896.	Then there is technician,
grade 1, $2,772 to $3,028; grade 2, $2,904 to $3,240; grade 3, $3,240 to $3,576; grade 4, $3,576 to $3,888.


George Harris Hees: What kind of inspection staff would we have at the gun plant at Sorel inspecting the manufacture, for example, of the 3-inch naval guns that have been mentioned? What kind of personnel would be there making sure we get the right kind of guns?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: We have largely armament inspectors who have qualified in work of that kind during the war and in Canadian Arsenals Limited since, and are of the type of official mentioned here. Some of them inspect each item in the equipment as it is made. I would estimate that there are between fifty and one hundred inspectors at Sorel Industries at the present time.


George Harris Hees: All civilian?


Brooke Claxton: In addition to members of the navy as well.


Mr. Shaw:: Earlier the minister indicated the department's intention to utilize civilian personnel as far as possible, thus freeing service personnel for the duties for which they were enlisted. Would the minister indicate how far that policy will go? In the actual operation of an air station such as Penhold, to what extent would you utilize civilian personnel?


Brooke Claxton: There we would utilize civilian personnel in works services, that is, maintenance work, painting, ground keeping, road keeping and the like. As civilian guards we would use either the corps of commissionaires or other guards. In the kitchen services they would be used as assistant cooks, waiters, dish washers, and in work of that kind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to point out to the minister that I agree wholeheartedly with this policy. What about the age restriction? I recall that during the last war many of our older people found employment at Bowden under civilian administration and to a limited extent at Penhold. They were persons who could not fit into industry but were quite capable of doing the types of work mentioned by the minister. Is an age restriction to be imposed, or have you gone that far in your plan?


Brooke Claxton: It is entirely governed by
the civil service rules. Some of these employees may be temporary civil servants and others will be prevailing rate employees. Both classes will be governed by the civil service rules.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the minister know
whether or not that was the case during the last war?


Brooke Claxton: I am informed that at Pen-hold at that time the operations were carried on by a private company.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I think that was Bowden, was it not?


Brooke Claxton: Bowden. It acted as a contractor for the department, and engaged personnel itself. We have that kind of arrangement at the present time for catering

for summer camps. We pay the caterer so much a day, give him the food, and he supplies the staff which he hires.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Does the department contemplate having any of these fields operate on a similar basis, namely, administered by a civilian organization? I think it was the Edmonton flying club that administered Bowden. Is there any intention of following the same policy again?


Brooke Claxton: Not at the major air training stations.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask to what extent women are employed as cooks and so on, and whether the department has under consideration the possibility of using more women in different capacities in order to release men for active service.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, indeed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then with respect to the service schools in which the children of service personnel are educated at various points across the country, do those teachers come under this item of civil salaries and wages, and are those teachers service men and women or are they civilians?


Brooke Claxton: The teachers in the schools operated by the department for the children of service personnel are civilians. They do not come under this heading; they come under the heading of civilian employees in each of the services, navy, army and air force. Incidentally, they are usually engaged in co-operation with the provincial school authorities and have to be qualified according to the regulations of the province in which they are employed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I had intended to ask whether there was a connection with the provincial authorities.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, there is; and the schools are inspected by the provincial authorities. We meet local provincial standards, and indeed in most of the provinces we work, by arrangement with the provincial authorities, in exactly the same way a municipal school organization would. For example, the school at Barriefield will have a school board created and operated exactly the same as a school board would operate in an adjacent civilian municipality, with the same number of members on the board, the same titles, the same functions and the same responsibilities.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do the members of these school boards receive any compensation for the services they render?


Brooke Claxton: None at all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then there is no charge against this department for inspection service or anything of that nature with regard to the schools?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have anything to do with the construction of homes on R.C.A.F. stations?


Brooke Claxton: Central Mortgage and
Housing built a very large proportion of the homes for us until two or three months ago, when that operation was taken over by Defence Construction Limited. C.M.H.C. are still carrying on with a very considerable number of homes that are unfinished.


Harry Oliver White: Following that up, no doubt Central Mortgage and Housing have their inspectors looking over these houses from time to time. Does the air force also maintain an inspection staff for this purpose?


Brooke Claxton: Not specifically, but the air officers in charge of works co-operate closely, and if they are not satisfied with the type of construction they report that fact and it is brought to the attention of Central Mortgage and Housing.


Mr. Low:: I wonder if the minister is in a position to say what plans the department has, if any, for the use or expansion of the Grande Prairie airport. Is it proposed to make any extensive use of it in the defence of the great northwest?


Brooke Claxton: Like all other airports in existence Grande Prairie of course is under consideration in the event of any future development, but there is nothing in mind at the present time.


Solon Earl Low: Of course the minister understands the importance of that airport in connection with the threat to the northwest. I was also wondering whether any negotiations have been carried on with a view to having the United States share with the dominion and provincial governments the cost of building a communications link, which no doubt would be a road, between Fort St. John, let us say, which is the end of the Alaska highway, and the industrial centres of the middle western United States. That would entail quite a construction program over the area between Edmonton and Fort St. John, of course. I understand the provincial government is going ahead with a survey between Edmonton and Valley view, if I remember correctly, which is very close to Grande Prairie. I wonder if any thought has been given to asking the United States to share in the cost of that road.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: We have had representations from the chamber of commerce of Edmonton and other bodies that we should undertake this job as a defence project. We have considered it, and have decided that it is not so very different from fifty other proposals that have been made that the federal government should assist in the development of transportation facilities which it is true would be an advantage in the event of war but which we feel would be of far greater civilian advantage. These matters are always under consideration, but so far we have not decided to do anything in the case mentioned by the hon. member. With regard to the United States participation in it, under our arrangements with the United States we have assumed responsibility for maintenance for the northwest highways in Canada. That seems quite a proper contribution by Canada to joint defence. While we do not exclude the possibility of United States assistance in the development of transportation facilities in peacetime, there would have to be a very positive and immediate advantage to the United States to justify us in contemplating any such request. Our present opinion is that if things of that kind are to be done at all they should be done by Canada.


Solon Earl Low: There is, of course, this particular reason why the United States should be brought in to share the cost of that link between Edmonton and Fort St. John. Today, as for many years past, great truck trains carrying tons of materials pass over the Alberta highway from Montana, through the Crowsnest pass and up into that country. These materials are necessary both for defence purposes and for the maintenance of United States posts. I would think it proper that they should be asked to share in the cost of maintaining and/or rebuilding those highways, because they are cutting them to pieces and the provincial government has to pay the cost of rebuilding them. During the last war when it was thought Alaska was in danger the United States found it greatly to its advantage to have some form of highway up into that country. They did build from Fort St. John away north into the Yukon and Alaska, but there was no link between Fort St. John and the industrial centres of southern Alberta and the United States. It seems to me this is the time to be negotiating for the completion of that highway so that if and when trouble arises it will be there and the United States will have contributed at least its share to the cost of construction, because certainly they will be using it.


George Harris Hees: I was very interested in the minister's reply to the hon. member for

Supply-National Defence Hamilton West regarding the replacement of male personnel by women, in the civilian branch of the department. Could the minister give us an outline of the plan in effect at the present time to replace men with women? I think it is most important because of the need for men both for the armed services and for industry.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid this is not the sort of thing that can be done in any set way. The general attitude of the department and of those engaging people for us, such as the civil service commission, is that wherever possible women are employed, where they can do the job as well as or better than men.


George Harris Hees: Another matter I think is of importance is the replacement of serving staffs, cooks and so on, by civilians. I know that at Petawawa camp, where I have gone for several summers, the catering has been by civilians, and it has been done to the great satisfaction of all military personnel. I wonder to what extent that has become general or is going to become general? It seems to me that the practice of using army personnel for cooks or waiters is waste, and that is a good plan. I wonder if it is going to be general.


Brooke Claxton: For the army, my recollection is that we made contracts with twelve contractors, and that those contracts are still in force. They supply the services-we supply the food-at charges which vary with the locality, the facilities and the number of meals served. The cost is approximately forty cents to sixty-five cents per day. The satisfaction depends on both the skill of the caterer and the direction he has been able to give to his own staff, and also the co-operation and services of the messing officer or dietitian of the armed forces on the spot. Where they have worked well together, it has gone very well. It is our intention to continue to do this in the places where we have exceptional peak loads, such as Petawawa, Valcartier and so on where summer training is done. In establishments where we have to have messing done on a fairly full level all the year round, our practice is to have service cooks and their immediate assistants who belong to one of the services; the subordinate job is done by civilians. We do this in order to build up as large a reservoir as we possibly can of trained and good cooks. During the last three years we have had considerable success in attracting more men into cooking branches and also through training courses. I think the standard has improved.


Harry Oliver White: The hon.
member for Peace River introduced a matter that I think is of some importance to western

Ontario as well as to the province of Alberta, namely, using the problem of joint defence between the United States and Canada as the thin edge of the wedge. During the past war trucks in bond were passing through from Detroit to the Niagara frontier with tremendous loads, and they did considerable damage to No. 3 highway. Now this procedure is being reopened, and while we want to do all we can as Canadians in order to facilitate the war effort, just what part of the burden is Canada going to bear with respect to damage to the highways? Then there is another angle. In the city of St. Thomas alone, some 270 men have been laid off by one of the railways there. This is something that affects the welfare of the city, and it is something that should be considered before these permits are issued.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is one point that arose out of the minister's remarks about the inspection service. He referred to the inspection of ships and vessels. Do the inspectors of the steamship inspection service of the Department of Transport carry out inspections of His Majesty's vessels?


Brooke Claxton: The hull is inspected by Lloyd's for us; and the machinery and equipment is inspected by our ow.n inspection services, not by the Department of Transport.


George Randolph Pearkes: The Department of Transport maintains a steamship inspection service which makes periodical examination of the engines of all steamships. Are those inspections carried out in His Majesty's ships?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then what form of inspection do we have which would replace or be the counterpart of the inspection service carried out on ordinary commercial vessels by the Department of Transport?


Brooke Claxton: I understand that the object of the Department of Transport is primarily to safeguard the lives of passengers and, of course, to ensure the safety of the ship as regards seaworthiness and the like. Our ships are inspected by Lloyd's and the equipment is inspected by the inspection services, including service personnel.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite aware that the Department of Transport carry out those inspections with the idea of ascertaining the seaworthiness of ships which are now afloat and of inspecting, as the minister says, as to provisions for the safety of the passengers and so on. I am asking what similar service is carried out in His Majesty's ships, because I do not think the Department of Transport inspection service is limited only to passenger ships. Freighters are also inspected.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Ferries are inspected. I was wondering what sort of staff was maintained in order to carry out the inspection service for His Majesty's ships which are now afloat, in order to see that they are seaworthy and in order to safeguard the lives of our sailors and the ships' company on those vessels. With 725 men to carry out all the numerous services which have been outlined today, it seems to me that that number is quite inadequate to perform all these duties. I am wondering how that particular form of inspection is carried out.


Brooke Claxton: If a ship is in commission, it is inspected by the Royal Canadian Navy itself. If the navy desires to have any outside opinion, it would engage, through the agencies I have mentioned, a firm of marine engineers or others to do a special job of inspection for it.


George Randolph Pearkes: As to educational services, the minister mentioned the system for teaching the children of servicemen. I want to ask about the position of the civilian professors and assistant professors at such colleges as Royal Roads and the Royal Military College. Are they included in these civil service salaries as well?


Brooke Claxton: The civilian teaching staff and scientific staff at Royal Roads and R.M.C. are engaged through the civil service commission; and they are paid, as civil servants, the salaries for their classification.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not paid out of the
administration vote, then?


Brooke Claxton: They are paid; for R.M.C., out of civil service salaries for the army and for Royal Roads, out of civil service salaries for the navy.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not included in the estimates we are now considering for civil servants under the head of administration.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not shown under the civil service salaries for the army and the navy?


Brooke Claxton: They are shown under the civil salaries for the army and navy.


George Randolph Pearkes: They will come up later?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not shown in this?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: I want to return to a question that I raised at the time that these estimates were before us approximately two weeks ago.
Supply-National Defence At that time I asked for the number of civilian employees under different departmental groupings. In referring to what I said at that time the Minister of National Defence gave certain figures as to total civilian employees; but he did not comply with the request that was made at that time, namely that we should have information similar to that which is given to us in the public accounts and similar to that which is furnished to the House of Commons in Great Britain under the estimates provided to the members there. I ask that we have full information respecting the category of the various civilian employees and the salary range of those categories. I pointed out that the most convenient way that this could be presented was to present it in the same way that it is presented to the members of the House of Commons in Great Britain. I suggested that an appropriate number should be mimeographed so that they could be furnished to the members of the house. May I first ask the minister whether such forms are available. If so, may we have them at this time?


Brooke Claxton: They are certainly not available, Mr. Chairman. I have already given the committee the information in one form, which is the form followed by the civil departments in Canada. To give them in addition in the form followed by the armed forces in Britain would require that our figures, books and cards be kept in a different way. If that is the desire we can keep them in a different way. It would cost a good deal and we can arrange to do it, but it is not possible to do it out of the records we have today, without looking at every file, and I have indicated that there are 29,000 employees.
The hon. member asked for them to be grouped in categories, salary range and also at the places, with the establishments I think in which they were working. Without a count of the number of such places or establishments, I am informed that there are between 700 and 800. Certainly that seems reasonable, because there are over 400 reserve army units alone, and most of them have civilian employees, or many of them have, on one basis or another; so that it would not be possible, even in a couple of months, to give this information in the form in which the leader of the opposition has asked for it.
It would be possible to do it if parliament, or the treasury board, decided that that was the right way to do it, in another year. I am sure it would mean a substantial addition to the number of civil employees we have, and what the benefit would be I cannot say. But I simply cannot give it within a couple of months.	.

Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: given. From clerical staff on we come into that group that was mentioned by the minister who are employed on a different basis, and in these instances the total is given.
That is simply dealing with the department of chief of the imperial general staff. I am convinced that in a very short time, in fact, by nine o'clock tonight, the efficient accounting system of the Department of National Defence could give us precisely corresponding information from the records of the department. I know they could do it because the minister is able to obtain information of this kind as questions are asked in regard to other matters. Similarly, he could obtain the information on a corresponding basis with the chief of the naval staff as to civil salaries and wages, and he could also obtain equally quickly the information in regard to the chief of the air staff.
One of the reasons that it is necessary to come back to this repeated reference to the kind of committee that they have at Westminster, Mr. Chairman, which we want here, is that if we had such a committee we could ask the chief accountant to come before us and find out what the books contain. I am convinced that if we had that chief accountant before us we could demonstrate in a few minutes that all these figures would be available not in months, but in some cases in a matter of hours, and in other cases at the very most in a few days.
Two weeks have elapsed since we last met, and if any serious effort had been made to give the basic information that is made available to every member of parliament in Great Britain, where they have much larger forces than we have here, we now would have that information before us, and would be discussing it with some knowledge of what the facts actually are.
To suggest that it is useless is to suggest that every other department which gives out the same information is filling the records with useless information and wasting time and money; and to suggest that it is useless is also to suggest that this waste of money takes place in Great Britain where they have had very much longer experience in handling accounts of that kind than we have.
Most certainly we cannot compel the minister to do anything that this house will not ask him to do by a majority vote; but I do ask him one specific question. Does he suggest that it would not be possible to have for us by tomorrow at the latest, without any substantial difficulty, figures corresponding to those which I have read, under similar headings, of the chief of the imperial general staff?


Brooke Claxton: I have already expressed that view, but I will do it again. I have asked officers of the department responsible for the preparation of such material how long it would take to get the information just asked for by the leader of the opposition-I had asked them before in fact-and I am told it would be three or four weeks.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but does he mean in relation to what I have just mentioned to him, in connection with the chief of the imperial general staff?


Brooke Claxton: We can ask General Foulkes, or go to his office tomorrow and list his employees. There would be no difficulty about that. But there would be difficulty about getting information which would be useful, and which would answer the hon. member's question, with regard to employees at every location across Canada. That is what he asked for the other day, and that is what he asked for, in the beginning, today.
As I say, there are between 700 and 800 places; and when one got the information it would not mean anything to anyone. All the information is kept on punched cards, which operate in conjunction with a mechanism supplied by International Business Machines. They are efficient machines. We can run cards through those machines, and print the lists of employees, as we did here, and put them in order, by classification. But we cannot do that, for locations, without having experienced personnel go through and interpret the code in the cards for each locality. I am told that would take three or four weeks. If the leader of the opposition does not believe me-and apparently he does not -then I would point out to him that the associate deputy minister will be before the public accounts committee tomorrow, and he can give that answer. He was there today, and he could have given it at any time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would not be allowed to
ask it.


Brooke Claxton: Ask it for 1949-50, and do a quick modification for yourselves.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, may I point
out-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The leader of the
opposition will realize that he cannot interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, unless he has the consent of that hon. member. However, he may be speaking to a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the
deputy minister cannot answer in regard to these estimates, in the light of a ruling made in the public accounts committee.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition
surely heard the answer I gave the hon. member for Kamloops in this matter, that it could be asked quite properly for 1949-50, and then he could make a calculation for himself.


George Alexander Drew: There is no need to, because it is in the public accounts, in this form, for that year.


Brooke Claxton: It is not in this form; it is
in alphabetical order. If the hon. member wishes us to operate the machines and to put a list of all the employees of the department in alphabetical order, we can work the machine and that can be done. That does not require any interpretation at all. But when he wants us to give the information by localities for each of the three services of defence, research and civilian administration, located at 700 or 800 places across the country, and in addition to have the number in each category as well as the salary range, it would be a long job. We could keep our accounts that way, but we do not think it is desirable, and neither does treasury board. We could do it, though.
Then, in relation to what the leader of the opposition said about my saying that this is useless: I repeat that it is useless. Obviously it is useless to endeavour to check here or anywhere else in respect to the increase in the number of employees when we say we are going to increase by 5,000 this year. The figures are changing so rapidly-


George Randolph Pearkes: Five thousand?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Under this item?


Brooke Claxton: No, in relation to the total
civil employees, and not necessarily this year, but rather over the next two years. On that account the figures we are now discussing will be out of date within a matter of weeks or months. That is why we think, and treasury board thinks, it is not useful to give the results in the form in which I have already given them. To give the information as to locations it would mean either a hand operation, after we had run through the cards, or keeping our books in a different way.


George Alexander Drew: May I point out that the question I asked the Minister of National Defence was whether or not he could by tomorrow give the information in regard to the civilian employees of the branch of the chief of general staff, on a basis similar to that furnished in regard to the office of the chief of the imperial general staff, in the manner indicated in the paragraph I have already read. That was the question I asked; and I asked it because we are dealing here not

Supply-National Defence with civil salaries and wage rates across the country but rather with civil salaries and wages, in this particular instance, at national defence headquarters. I mentioned the chief of air staff and the chief of naval staff, but the particular question was whether it would be possible to obtain the information in regard to the office of the chief of general staff here, similar to that I have just read in relation to the office of the chief of the imperial general staff.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not wish to interrupt but-


An hon. Member:: Just a minute.


Brooke Claxton: My information is that we cannot give it in respect of one branch, without making a considerable search, because we do not keep separately records of the personnel for the office of the chief of general staff. We could go there and find out, of course. But what we do is to keep the general staff branch of the army separate-we can arrange to do that, and get it for one branch. However if the same question is put for localities outside Ottawa, for command headquarters, area headquarters, naval reserve divisions,-Esquimalt, Halifax and others

and everything else then, as I say, we will require three or four months to get it together.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a simple question. We are dealing with the first sub-item under the heading of departmental administration, which includes inspection services and civil defence, and which relates alone to national defence headquarters. Is that not correct?


Brooke Claxton: This figure does not have anything to do with the chief of general staff.


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


Brooke Claxton: This figure.


George Alexander Drew: Are not the civilian employees of the chief of general staff included in this?


Brooke Claxton: No, they are in the army.


George Alexander Drew: There would be no staff figure included in this?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all.


George Alexander Drew: Then that makes it simpler, because if they are not included in this I will repeat my question when we come to the army item. I thought they would be kept under the item for civilian employees. We understand, then, that these civilian employees at national defence headquarters are in addition to the civilian employees employed by the branch of the chief of general

staff, the chief of air staff, the chief of naval staff, and any other senior staff establishments in Ottawa?


Brooke Claxton: Of course.


George Alexander Drew: Then that does open up a new figure as to the total of civilian employees. But does the minister say that in regard to the civil employees in his own department, excluding these military offices, he is not able to furnish the information as to the number of employees in different categories, and the salary range?


Brooke Claxton: We have already done it in one way.


George Alexander Drew: No.


Brooke Claxton: That was the way which
corresponded to the method adopted by the civilian departments. We have done it for administration, and I thought I had explained it before. It began with the administrative assistant, and so on, and totalled 1270 civilian employees for a total wage of $3,489,842. That would be easy for us to do. We can list the individuals here or answer inquiries about individuals. That would be available by tomorrow night. But if we have to do that for each and every branch, the department, navy, army and air force, in every part of Canada, by localities, occupation and salary range, it would take three months. I hope the position is just as clear as I can make it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am going to
ask two things. First I would point out that I am simply asking questions with regard to headquarters, the civilian employees covered by the item we are now discussing. At the moment my questions relate to that alone and as to whether the minister can furnish us with a list of the various categories of employees at defence headquarters and the salary range of those employees. That is the question I have asked, not with regard to the various areas outside.


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member will see from Hansard of last week, of this week and of today that he did refer to occupations across Canada. Right at the outset he referred to the general staff, from which I took it that his inquiries included navy, army and air force as well as the civilian side. If he wants the information he has asked for with regard to civilians at national defence headquarters, described by classification and if possible by branches, we can give that by tomorrow night. That is a much more limited thing than I understood he was asking for, although I may have been mistaken. If he

wants the same thing for the navy, army and air force and in each locality, then we have to tell him it will take three or four months- weeks.


George Alexander Drew: Which is it, months or weeks?


Brooke Claxton: I said weeks before.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister if this
list which I have in my hand and from which he was reading refers to civil employees in national defence headquarters, not including the army, navy, air or other military establishments?


Brooke Claxton: This list covers those who
fall not within the services, navy, army, air force or defence research, but do include public relations, inspection services and one or two other activities that come under the minister or the deputy minister of national defence, providing services right across the country.


George Alexander Drew: I gather that this list which I
have in my hand was obtained without any substantial difficulty?


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition
has only the part applicable to administration which we are considering now. The whole operation took fourteen employees two weeks to prepare.


George Alexander Drew: What I have in my hand?


Brooke Claxton: I have assured the leader of the opposition that what he has in his hand, plus what is here, which relates to army, navy and air force, and gives the same information with respect to these branches as the hon. member has with regard to the item we are now discussing, is what has been prepared.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask that these sheets be printed in Hansard. The reason I ask that is that they contain the very information I have been asking for. This is precisely the information which I have been asking for in so far as the classified positions under national defence headquarters are concerned. It is just the kind of information I have been reading from the army estimates in regard to officers of the chiefs of the general staff. Let me read one or two items. Administrative assistants, salary $2,772-$3,570; one permanent, six temporary, total seven; total payments, $23,184. Administrative assistants, auditing and examining: five permanent; nine temporary; total 14; total payment, $37,800. And so on right down through the list giving precisely the kind of information I have been asking for.
That being so it will be most helpful if this and the other lists which have been referred to, and which I understand cover
Supply-National Defence the chiefs of the general staff, the chief of the naval staff, chief of the air staff, and research establishments, are printed in Hansard so that we can have them available. Otherwise the members of this house will not have this information available for the purposes of this discussion.


Brooke Claxton: I understood the leader of the opposition was in his place when I tabled these lists this afternoon at about three-thirty o'clock. I am happy if he is satisfied with the information that is given, but in so far as their being printed in Hansard is concerned I think hon. members should consider whether that proposal should be acceded to. I said I would make photostatic copies available to the leaders of the various parties, which is being done and can be done overnight. To print these lists in Hansard would be quite an operation.


George Alexander Drew: I am sure that many lists much more extensive than these are printed regularly. With the excellent printing service we have I am sure that we could have these in quite satisfactory form by tomorrow morning. I was here this afternoon when the minister announced that he was tabling certain papers but it is only now-I have only one of them in front of me-that I find that this is the very information to which I have been referring. This is simply part of the information which is furnished in printed form to the members of the House of Commons in Great Britain. If it can be placed satisfactorily in printed form before the members of the House of Commons over there, and dealing with a much larger force, I think we should have it here. If it were printed as an appendix to Hansard in the ordinary way it would be available to hon. members.


Brooke Claxton: I do not want any misunderstanding on the part of the leader of the opposition. He has referred to these lists as satisfying himself and has made the request that the lists be made available to hon. members. The lists have been available, as I say, since about three-thirty. If that were so I would be very happy. I do not want him to change his mind, but I do not want the record to show that I have acquiesced in the statement he has just made.


George Alexander Drew: You mean that you acquiesced that they are satisfactory?


Brooke Claxton: The lists are what I described them to be when I tabled them. They contain the civil employees of the Department of National Defence in the three armed services according to classification, wage group, the number of both permanent and temporary employees, and then the total wage for each

Supply-National Defence group. The total of the prevailing rates employees is also given. They are classified in four parts: 1. Administration; 2. Navy;
3.	Army; 4. Defence research. That is what the lists are, and they are available, as I so indicated, and we will have photostatic copies made which can be used by the parties.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about this being available to the members. I certainly do not want any statement left on Hansard which would convey the impression that members of this house have had the slightest opportunity to examine these figures, or that they would have any practical opportunity to examine them between now and tomorrow. When I say that these are satisfactory, I am now talking about the form in which the figures I have seen are presented, and these are the ones that relate to the classified positions of civil employees of the administration branch of the Department of National Defence. Although I have not seen the sheets themselves, I am now told that similar sheets have been prepared for the civil employees of the army, navy and air services.
This shows exactly how easy it would have been to have given these figures and to have had them before us in either printed or mimeographed form, as was suggested when we last met. I said at that time that the minister would be able to prepare these and have them in mimeographed form for the members of the house. What he has now produced indicates that I was correct and that it was possible for him to do it because on the occasion that we next take up the estimates, which is today, we find that these are available. This table gives the various classifications, salary ranges, number in the salary ranges, and the totals. They are under the heading first of all of administration, classified positions, then army classified, navy classified and air classified. These lists could be printed without any difficulty. We frequently have much more voluminous information printed in the ordinary way in the next day's Hansard. The proper way to place these tables before members for their information and for discussion is to have them printed in Hansard in the usual way. I move that the records which have been placed in my hands by the minister, and which have been tabled, should be printed in Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The leader of the opposition will understand that these documents are either tabled or printed as an appendix to Hansard by leave of the committee. It is not done by motion. There is one point I wish to clear up at this time. We are


now discussing the sub-item, as it was called a moment ago, of civil salaries and wages under the heading "defence services". The question asked the other day by the leader of the opposition, and which is now answered by the Minister of National Defence, was one which related to the sub-item, civil salaries and wages, under all the headings where such a sub-item appears. If we are going to be in order I will have to obtain the opinion of the committee to see whether or not only the list relating to civil salaries and wages under the heading "defence services" will be printed at this time as an appendix to Hansard, and then when we come to the sub-item civil salaries and wages under navy I will have to ascertain whether it is the desire of the committee to have that list printed. It is only a matter of order which can easily be settled, but the committee will understand that I am bound by the agreement that was made and which we have to carry out. Has the Minister of National Defence leave to have these documents pertaining to all sub-items relating to civil salaries and wages printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ferrie:: Not the name of the person.


George Alexander Drew: There are no names.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the Minister of National Defence leave of the committee to have the list pertaining to civil salaries and wages under the heading "defence services" printed as an appendix?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For table of civil salaries and wages, defence services, see appendix, pages 3390-91.)


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the heading on the top sheet is "administration", but it obviously relates to the same heading as in the item because it reaches a total of $3,489,842. Then it is agreed that this table be printed as an appendix to Hansard. I will not pursue the matter further except to point out that, whether it was appropriate or whether it was not, I understood the others had been tabled, and if they are tabled I submit it is proper at any time to have them printed for the convenience of members. Since they have been tabled and since they are available I would suggest that this would be the proper time to have them all printed.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sure the Minister of National Defence does not want to give any person the idea in listening to this debate that this is the old shell game, in other words,

that you cannot get your eye on the pea, that you have got to guess. It is the old sleight of hand question, and you can never locate the pea. A great deal of time has been expended in the house in trying to get some information which a certain member believes is essential for the reason that he wants to get the information on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. In sitting and listening to the debate, it has been most difficult to extract the information which some hon. members believe he is entitled to, and which I am sure he is entitled to. After a great deal of argument it finally comes to light that the information was sitting on the desk of the minister across the house, and it was not divulged to the person seeking it.
The minister's department probably has
30,000	employees. The situation is probably not due to his fault but because of the general scheme and plan of keeping records in his department. I am sure that every department probably has the same jumbled up mess. Take a corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway with 60,000 employees on pension and salary. I believe that if an executive in the head office of the C.P.R. in Montreal asked a question regarding a man's salary that information could be located in five minutes.


Brooke Claxton: I can get the answer in five minutes about any one of them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It certainly was taking a terrific length of time to locate the information as to the salaries of about fifty. You must be thinking of one individual member of the staff whose salary you know, or you know that some person can locate the information about the salary in five minutes. The minister spoke about increasing the staff but it is almost impossible to keep your finger on the pea or to secure the information. We are going to have an increase of 5,000. I hope that the war situation does not get much worse, so that the department will have to administer an army of 700,000. We would not know whether we were paying Chinese communists or Russians. We would not know who was on our payroll if we ever had an army of 700,000. We have a comparatively small army. The chiefs of staff, their staffs, and other civil servants apparently find it most difficult to be able to give the Minister of National Defence information that is available at any time in any well run corporation. It certainly is not available in the minister's department.
I am not saying that is his fault, but I do suggest that apparently a change is necessary. Efficiency should be department, so that in future he will not be placed in the embarrassing position of having
Supply-National Defence to tell the members of this house that he cannot give information which I believe should be available almost instantaneously. He should have a proper list of employees, with their salaries, their ages and where they are located.
I bring to the attention of the committee the example of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has 60,000 employees. I remember that while travelling on that railway some years ago the engine ran into some difficulty. When I reached Montreal I visited the office of the administrator of rolling stock and remarked that this engine, giving the number, had run into this difficulty which delayed the arrival of the train by some hours. The man in charge of rolling stock at that time pressed a button and called for the history of that engine; and there it was in full detail. He showed me the fuel consumption of the engine since it had been placed in service, the number of miles it had travelled, the number of times it had been repaired and so on. He assured me that applied to every single piece of rolling stock on that railway; he had all that information right under his thumb. I believe the Canadian Pacific has as many pieces of rolling stock as we have in the army, and on the railway they travel more frequently and more rapidly than is the case with our armed forces; yet the man in charge of that department could tell any visitor the cost of any piece of equipment, the cost of its operation and so on, by pressing a button and calling for a number.
Surely some similar method, or something almost as good, should be introduced to keep track of the employees of this government, whether they be members of the armed forces of whether they be on the civilian staffs of those forces. This discussion today has been most enlightening in that it has brought out; the lack of system and lack of efficiency in this particular department. As I say, I am not blaming the minister. Very often a man is placed in a department and has to carry on for years under, the set-up that was there long before he got there; but we certainly suggest to the present minister that if the present system is as cumbersome as it appears to be, it should be changed. Either those in charge should be changed, or they should be instructed that the system must be improved so the representatives of the people may obtain the information which will place them in a position to judge how the affairs of the country are being run. That is particularly so with the members of the opposition, who are here for no other purpose than sought in the to be the critics of the government, the watchdogs of the treasury, on behalf of the people of Canada.
3360	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I cannot let statements be repeated time and again which are contrary to what I said this afternoon at the beginning of this discussion. Four or five times now I have repeated what I said then, and I hope this will be the last time. At three-thirty or shortly after that I tabled all the information about civilian employees of this department, navy, army, air force and defence research. I described what the sheets contained. I said it corresponded to the arrangement regarding civilian employees in the other government departments. I then said this could not be mimeographed or reproduced or printed earlier because it had been made available to me only today, and that was because it required fourteen days to get it in this form. Every bit of information that is asked for can be obtained, but it is a question of time to arrange it in the order which suits the convenience not only of the apposition but of this committee as a whole, because we are all members of it. I have been asked for that information by members of the opposition in one form. Because we did not keep it in that form, since it was not considered desirable by the treasury board, it took fourteen people fourteen days to get it in that form. That is the only reason it was not available earlier. Remarks about the efficiency of the department can be judged by the efficiency of the armed forces for which this department acts as housekeeping and administrative agent.
With regard to the time required to do any single job, it depends upon how closely that job conforms to the practice we follow and what it requires in the way of a large scale operation. If I am asked the salary, occupation and location of any individual employee I can get that information by telephoning the department, or if I am in the department I can get it within a minute and a half. But if I am asked to arrange the information concerning a large group of employees in some way other than that in which we keep it, that takes some time; and I think hon. members should consider whether the time involved both in the department and in this committee is worth the results in the circumstances. That is the responsibility of hon. members and apparently they are quite willing to face it, when we see what is going on.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before I call it six o'clock may I refer to what has been said about the tabling of these documents. Such documents are usually tabled when motions are called under routine business. Since the minister, the leader of the opposition and all hon. members are under the impression that these documents were tabled at the


proper time, perhaps by leave, and if the procedure is otherwise regular, we could now agree that these documents have been tabled regularly under motions, so the records will show-


Brooke Claxton: They were tabled at the beginning.


Mr. McCann:: As I understand it these documents were produced as the result of inquiries that were made, and when the minister brought them in he distinctly said he tabled all the documents.


George Alexander Drew: Since you have raised the point, Mr. Chairman, and since I do not want the Hansard record to convey an inaccurate impression outside this house, I point out that the documents were not tabled. The minister announced that he proposed to table them, and as you have pointed out he did so after the calling of motions. No one raised any objection, but since the minister has emphasized that these were tabled that conveys the impression that they were available, and I would point out that they were not tabled at that time but that only within the last ten minutes did they find their way to the table. The first time I saw them, and the first time anyone had an opportunity to note what they contained, other than the general statement by the minister, was when at my request the minister delivered them to me for my examination. They were then conveyed to the table. I would certainly hope they might be accepted for tabling in the ordinary way, but I do point out for the record that it was only about ten minutes to six when they actually found their way to the table.


James Joseph McCann: I must entirely disagree with that statement. I sat in my place here, and immediately after the documents were referred to the minister said he tabled them, and that was at about a quarter to four. That included all the documents.


Brooke Claxton: And ever since then they have been available to every hon. member.


James Joseph McCann: The leader of the opposition may have been engaged with something else, but I am positive of what the minister said with reference to the documents he had in his hand. They were put on the table here; and the fact that the page boy did not place them on the table of the house was not the fault of the minister.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege may I make it quite clear that because the minister said he was tabling the documents, that does not constitute tabling. I repeat that the documents were not tabled until ten minutes to six. The minister announced

that he was tabling them, and I am quite satisfied that it was his intention to do so. But I must confess that the statement just made by the Minister of National Revenue suggests the extent to which the government is disregarding the ordinary procedure, when he suggests that the mere statement of a minister that he is tabling something actually constitutes tabling. Documents are tabled when they reach the table, and that was ten minutes ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I just say this-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think I have heard enough on the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have heard others. Is an hon. member not to be heard?


Louis-René Beaudoin: When the documents were produced, hon. members will understand that I was not in the chair. It is the usual practice that, when documents are produced, the page boys pick up the documents and bring them to the table. Now that I am in the chair and this incident has occurred, I just want to make sure that the record will read correctly tomorrow-I refer to the Journals; that is what I am interested in-that these documents be considered as having been tabled regularly just as if leave had been asked to revert to motions when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. Is that agreed?


Mr. Fraser:: Oh, no.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Since this discussion has arisen, the record must be kept correct; and I suggest that it be recorded that it was agreed that the documents which were tabled at ten minutes to six should be accepted as tabled in the usual way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply wish to say this, in enlargement of what has been said by the Minister of National Revenue. * What the Minister of National Defence said at the conclusion of his opening remarks today-and I followed him closely-was "I table these documents". Then the page boy or the usher started to get the documents but the documents were not given to him by the minister or those with him. They were retained on the minister's desk and the usher was sent back without them.


George Alexander Drew: You mean they were retained at his desk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were simply put on the desk beside the minister. They were not put on the table. When the usher came to get them in order to take them to the table, he was told to go back without them. He was waved back.
80709-214J
Supply-National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: It may be difficult to clear up the point; it is a bit confused. The intention was there, and I am not going to be the arbitrator now.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. House
again in committee of supply on defence estimates, item No. 245, sub-item "civil salaries and wages." Before we go into the study of this sub-item may I say that before six o'clock we discussed the manner in which the documents pertaining to salaries were to be tabled. During the dinner recess I looked up the point and discovered that documents are tabled on the order for motions under routine business of the house. If they are to be tabled now I shall have to leave the chair, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, and take Mr. Speaker's chair. The minister will ask leave to revert to motions and table the documents, and then come back to committee of supply. It will take only a minute, and that will regularize the whole procedure. I think it is advisable that this should be done.
Is it the pleasure of the committee that I do now report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the
house, I move that we now revert to motions in order to table certain documents pertaining to civil salaries and wages of the defence estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. gentleman leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: I table the documents.
(See appendix, pages 3390-91.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,010,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The house again
in committee of supply on item 245 of the defence estimates. The hon. member for Nanaimo.


George Randolph Pearkes: I presume that the documents which were tabled will now be printed in Hansard in accordance with the wishes of the leader of the opposition.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must point out
to the hon. member for Nanaimo that there is a distinction to be made between leave of the committee to have certain documents printed as an appendix to Hansard and documents being tabled. Documents cannot be tabled in committee. It must be done with Mr. Speaker in the chair. When it is asked that certain documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard, that may be done by leave in committee or in the house with Mr. Speaker in the chair.
What happened at six o'clock was that by unanimous consent the committee ordered to be printed as an appendix to Hansard the details pertaining to civil salaries and wages under this sub-item which is under discussion. The other details are now tabled. Hon. members can go downstairs and get the information they want. At a later stage, when we come to another heading under which appears a similar sub-item, civil salaries and wages, if it is then the wish that the documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard we shall have to ask unanimous consent, and, if we obtain it, the documents will be printed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I just wanted to make certain that the table dealing with civil salaries and wages under administration will foe printed, as was requested by the leader of the opposition.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It will be done,
as it was ordered to be done this afternoon, by leave of the committee. Has the discussion terminated on civil salaries and wages?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I take it that it is proper under this item to introduce a general question with regard to the organization of the department in respect of civilian employees. I was startled-I think it was a year ago-to find the large number of civilian employees. I think at that time
[Mr. Claxton.)

one was startled because of the relationship which they bore to the active army at that time. Since then of course the situation has changed very greatly. We have waked up more to the altered world situation, and our army has increased, and also our civilian employees have increased very largely. They constitute a tremendously large organization, and it was with regard to that that I wanted to ask the minister one or two questions, for I consider he has a tremendous job to organize in respect of both.
My understanding is, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that there are some
30,000	civilian employees-these are rough figures-and that that represents an increase of some 5,000 within the last year. If I am approximately correct I will go on from there. My point is this. I wanted to ask the minister how that organization, which I call a very large one-perhaps the word "tremendous" would not be an exaggeration-is set up? What means has the minister taken to satisfy himself that this tremendously large body of men and women is organized to the best possible advantage, and in particular whether he is following the example that I think has been followed in at least one other department; whether he has availed himself of any outside assistance-what we may call expert assistance^-in the matter of organizing? Perhaps the minister would answer that question before I go any farther.


Brooke Claxton: It is set up in accordance with the practice which has obtained in the Department of National Defence over the years. There has not been much change. We have to do a job, and we do it.
With reference to the numbers, they vary from time to time, in relation to the job we have to do. We have to secure the approval for the establishment of every position, the recommendation of the civil service commission, and that has to be approved by the treasury board. Teams of the civil service commission, the treasury board and representatives of the department and services have gone about to ascertain how many people we need to do each job in each place.
We have proportionately reduced the number of civil service employees in the department year after year since I came into the job, until last year. And now, with the expansion of the armed forces from the 1st of July, 1950, to the present date by almost 28,000, speaking from memory, that has naturally resulted in an increase in the number of civilians, because we feel civilians should do the jobs civilians can do. We anticipate a further substantial increase in the number of civilians, just as we anticipate

a further substantial increase in the number of service personnel. We think that is the best way to do it. Each job or group of jobs has to be approved by the civil service commission and treasury board, and filled through the ordinary government channels or, in the case of prevailing rate employees, through employment obtained usually through employment offices of the Department of Labour. I do not know what else the hon. member wants, in answer to the question.


Mr. Laing:: He does not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry that apparently I have succeeded in making the minister feel that my question was a hostile one. It was not intended in that way. I assume we are here trying to look at these things as citizens regarding ourselves as more or less reasonable. This seems to me a matter of great importance which we might discuss on its merits.
Judging from his tone, apparently the minister resents my questions; but I hope that perhaps he will change his mind as we go along. He began by saying that, "We have a job and we do it," and that "We have always had an organization in the defence department," and, "We have developed as we have gone along." He has also said-and I applaud it-that they have the civil service commission and the treasury board teams to look after what they are doing, with a view to effecting economies, and trying to see that the number in the department is not greater than is necessary. That is all commendable.


Arthur Laing: Sure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; we are in agreement; thank you for your help. We all agree that is commendable; and I gather also that the minister, in spite of this very large task facing him, has not felt the need of availing himself of what I think ordinarily would be regarded as expert outside assistance. I would point out to the minister that I understand the film board which, I suppose, has perhaps only two or three per cent of the number of civilian employees in the defence department, did avail itself of a most reputable and respected organization which specializes in studies of efficiency.
I would be very interested to know why we would use it in a case where it would appear that efficiency ought to be much more easily scrutinized and ensured, as in the case of the film board, and would not care to use it here.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member suggest that an efficiency expert be called in
Supply-National Defence to say whether, for instance, army camps and airports, where cadets are in training, require hundreds of extra civilian help during the summertime? Would the hon. member suggest an expert to say how many cooks are required?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that there are any experts I know of who should be called in to assist the Department of National Defence in dealing with troops. I am talking wholly about the civilian staff.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking about the civilians.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will try to answer the question, but perhaps I should make my speech first.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I asked a question.
Mr:. Macdonnell (Greenwood):	I would
have thought it might be reasonable if an expert organization was brought in, yes, to find out how many civilians were needed to run a camp here or there. I was going to say, when the hon. member for Fraser Valley interrupted, that, having had some little experience in the army, although it was some time ago, and having great respect for the people in the army, nevertheless I suggest that it is no part of the ordinary training and no part of the attitude of the ordinary commanding officer in peacetime to try to do with as few men as possible. As a matter of fact, while it is not as true now as it used to be, the difficulty used to be to find enough for the men to do.
So I do not expect for one moment that the commanding officer would be greatly experienced in the matter of reducing civilian personnel, and perhaps it would be unfair to expect that he would be. I just wish to try to point this up by asking the Minister of National Defence again why he feels so definite, as I gather he does, that no outside assistance should be sought. When there are 30,000 people working there can be an enormous amount of wasted action and wasted money, if the organization is not set up to the best advantage.
I am going to ask the minister who are the people primarily responsible for the organization, and I am going to say that notwithstanding the team of the civil service commission and treasury board, who no doubt have a great many other duties to perform, I do not consider them, by their background, training or functions, necessarily the best people to go into an organization, to observe it and to find out whether it has functioned to the best advantage.

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Have you any facts or figures to back up your suggestion? Is there anything wrong?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I find that rather tiresome. This afternoon when I asked the minister a question as to whether there might be some duplication in the matter of inspection, he seemed to think I was suggesting that the inspection was not even well done, and that I was suggesting there was something wrong. All I was doing was to check on the organization. And I am not suggesting now there is anything wrong, except possibly we may have two men doing the work one can do.


Brooke Claxton: And you have not the slightest sign of evidence of that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not
hear the minister.


Brooke Claxton: I beg your pardon; I should not interrupt.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What did you say?


Brooke Claxton: I said that surely you have not the slightest sign of evidence of that in any respect whatsoever.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I find it a little difficult to understand the minister's point of view. I am saying something with which most people will agree, and that is that when you have 30,000 men and women at work it is important, to be sure, that they are efficiently organized.


Brooke Claxton: Sure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has really told us-and I wish to be accurate in what I say-the minister has, in effect, told us, or has said that he is going to tell us that they are well organized. I am not quite prepared to take that. I know the minister was competent in his own profession, and I am sure he has many other competencies I may not know about. But I do not think the minister will ask us to believe either that he is an expert on organization or that, with all the other things he has to attend to, he is able to give a great deal of time to the question of organization. I would imagine that a comparatively small amount of the minister's time could be spent on that subject. If I might hazard a guess I might think, judging from the many important things he has to do, and the many important journeys he has to take, that it is likely that the minister could not spend one-tenth of his time on this subject. But that is beside the point. All I am attempting to state is that other departments, perhaps with not one-tenth or perhaps not one per cent of the

employees his department has, have thought it worth while. Therefore I suggest it is not entirely a silly suggestion. The minister has given us the assurance-"We have a job, and we do it"-and perhaps they are doing it; but our business is to find out whether it is being done economically. I hope that we shall have a great deal more evidence before we are through. There should be some looking into of this huge organization to see whether it is actually functioning with one hundred per cent efficiency.
Let us remember this important fact. In any business organization you have one very definite acid test which is going on all the time. They are either making or losing money. Everybody spending money is called upon to account for it. If everybody spends too much, the company goes broke. We have no test of that kind unless it is the bottom of the taxpayer's pockets. Really I find it rather trying at times to accept the minister's attitude when I make suggestions in good faith that possibly he might be assisted in what I admit is a most onerous task if he had some outside assistance. All he says is, "All right, go away and be a good boy." I do not find that to be a satisfactory answer.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member has made his suggestion. As I have said before in this house, my hon. friend and I have been friends for thirty years. I am not going to refer to that again. I am just as much inclined to bore this committee with my responses to questions of the opposition as they are inclined to bore the committee with their questions. I am quite prepared to spend as much time or more in answering questions as they spend in putting them. As we know, the questions are not put for any other purpose than to force the government to adopt a course which so far the government has not seen fit to adopt.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I ask to have that withdrawn.


Brooke Claxton: I will withdraw it. It was not even suggested by the hon. member that we have too many civil servants in the Department of National Defence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would you rather that we made insulting suggestions to you, or asked civil questions?


Brooke Claxton: I would rather have something I can deal with than just inquiries and suggestions of apprehensive fears. I should like to deal as best I can with some of the several points raised. According to the

opposition, we seem to have more civil servants in the armed services in proportion than we should.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not say
that.


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to hear that withdrawal, or suggestion, or correction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Find out what he did say.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to deal with some of the general remarks that have been made and suggest to hon. members that the method we have in Canada for working out the number of civil servants, for working out their salary levels, for promoting the efficiency of government is as good as or better than any method anywhere in the democratic world, judging by results.
These suggestions and inquiries are made without any basis. They throw out fears and apprehensions, but what are the facts? It is high time we looked at the facts about the efficiency of the government or the efficiency of the Department of National Defence with which I am primarily concerned, and for which I am exclusively responsible in this house. I am proud to be responsible because I think one of the best ways to judge the efficiency of the Department of National Defence is to consider the way in which our troops perform, whether they be of the navy, army, air force or defence research. So far as I know there has not been any question based on those grounds put by anyone in this house in the last three years.


An hon. Member:: No.


Brooke Claxton: You say "No." The question is whether or not the defence estimates are suitable for the magnitude of the job we are doing and the build-up we are going in for, and whether or not we are spending the money in the right way. My submission is that the place to deal with whether or not we are spending the money right is in the public accounts committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Eighteen
months old.


Brooke Claxton: We have all seen the familiar failure of the public accounts committee to provide a quorum on about four out of ten or fifteen meetings this session.


George Randolph Pearkes: Who has the majority in that committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Liberals constitute
three-quarters of the committee.


Brooke Claxton: I can give a record of the attendance of the Conservatives. They get just as bored as do the Liberals.
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: They still stay on.


Brooke Claxton: Dealing with the question as to the number of civil servants in the department, according to the figures which have been provided by various government departments concerned, the proportion of civil servants in Canada to the civil labour force, and the proportion in other countries with which we are concerned are as follows:
Per cent
United Kingdom	 1-333
Australia	 1-478
Canada	 1-126
France	 2-286
United States	 1-395
I recognize the difficulty of making comparisons, but I suggest to the hon. member that that indicates an effort to promote efficiency on the part of the treasury board and the civil service commission which has succeeded, measured in those terms. About all I can say to the hon. member, whose sincerity I entirely respect, is that the same apparatus which has been applied to the other agencies of government has been applied to defence. We have the same application of civil service rules and treasury board regulations.
In addition we have conducted during the past three years a series of studies of our own establishment, both service and civilian, in an endeavour to promote the utmost economy. These studies were carried on by teams of the civil service commission, the treasury board, service personnel and officers of the department. My answer to the hon. gentleman is that we have been doing a good deal to promote what he wants. The results have been rather good between 1946 and 1948 or 1949 in the number of civil service personnel as related to the service personnel. The hon. member said that I could not possibly give much of my time to this matter. I can assure him-and I am sure he will accept my assurance-that I give a great deal of time to this as to every other branch of the department's work. With regard to having an outside agency, a team of efficiency engineers, do a job on us, we have considered that. We looked at the Griffenhagen report-I think that is the name-of about 1919 or 1920, and I must say that was not very encouraging.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did you look
at the film board report? Was it better?


Brooke Claxton: I have not been responsible
for the film board for three or four years, so I have not seen it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought
you might have been interested in what they did.

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: We have continuously under examination the strength of the service and civilian population of our department. I must say we have had nothing but the utmost co-operation from all three services. The hon. member referred to the natural tendency of service personnel to increase their empire. Perhaps I have ascribed to him more than he said, but I have not noticed that. Service personnel have co-operated in doing everything possible to make the most economical use of the civilian and service personnel they have. But the test of the pudding is in the eating. I think I have said in the course of this debate, and several times before, that judging by every possible form of comparison, whether it be in the case of the navy the proportion of men at sea, in the case of the air force the number of man hours flying per month per aircraft or per total manpower in the air force, or in the case of the army the number of people who are truly proportionately operational, we can stand comparison with any country despite the fact that we have to service our own country.
I had not intended to say this. I thought we were discussing civilian personnel, and I think every now and then we ought to get back to the program we have agreed to. I say the proof of the pudding should be in the eating. I ask hon. members to think about achievements of our armed forces with regard to Exercise Sweetbriar, the rescues of Canon Turner and that carried out by the Haida, the raising, training and employment of the 25th infantry brigade, including the Princess Patricia's, in Korea, the raising now of the 27th infantry brigade, the production of two of the greatest aircraft in the world, the development of anti-submarine vessels which I think are in advance of those of other countries, and then see whether what some hon. members are saying about the efficiency of the operation is really justified.
Here we are faced with the job of raising troops for service abroad, if necessary on two continents, the brigade group in battle in Korea today, the other group in Europe as part of the integrated force, the promise of eleven squadrons in Europe, the building up of 100 ships for the navy, new or refitted and rearmed, and the provision of all the training equipment and everything else necessary to see our way through the first year of a general war. Therefore I suggest that in the consideration of these items we should not lose sight of the major objective. As to the items themselves, as I have indicated I am ready and prepared to give every possible bit of information that can be given. I hope I have indicated that to be my attitude
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .j

before, and I will continue to do so throughout the discussion no matter how long it lasts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that the
minister has, if I may put it in these words, permitted himself an orgy of broad general statements in connection with Canada's defence efforts instead of answering the specific questions put by the hon. member for Greenwood. The statement that the minister has just made has resolved chiefly around two phrases or sentences, "let us look at the facts", and "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". I am all in favour of looking at the facts, and I certainly accept the fact that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It has been on a basis of that sort that a great deal of my criticism of the Department of National Defence has been made over the past two or three years, on the very fact that in spite of the fact that we were spending several hundreds of millions of dollars a year, amounting in total up to last year of upwards of $1,500 million since the end of the war, we did not have much pudding.
In spite of these efforts that the minister has been talking about, in spite of the hundreds of millions that were spent, when the war broke out in Korea less than a year ago we were in the position of having only one battalion of infantry fully trained and equipped. In other words, there was ofily one battalion of infantry, so far as the army was concerned, that was ready to fight. We had no other unit up to strength and completely equipped. So far as the air force was concerned, we did not have a single, completely equipped, up to strength, modern squadron ready to fight. So far as I can see them, there are the facts, and there is the proof of the pudding.


An hon. Member:: The pudding is not
cooked.


Douglas Scott Harkness: According to the minister, we have apparently had all these efforts, but when the time came that we needed forces for the defence of this country we did not have them. I will admit that in the last few months the department has been doing much better. They have raised the 25th brigade and they are in the process of raising the 27th brigade. They have, as the minister indicated, put in orders for two new types of jet aircraft. They are building some new submarine chasers for the navy. In other words, things have been going ahead better in the last year. But if the minister is going to apply to the criticisms that -we make the statement about looking at the facts, and

that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I think he is going to have very sour pudding to eat.


Mr. Thomas:: This afternoon the minister indicated that they were trying to get as many civilian personnel as possible to work in the training camps. He also said that such civilian personnel came under the civil service commission. It is my understanding that any man over forty-five years of age would be barred under civil service commission regulations. There has been a great deal of talk about the shortage of labour in this country. Men over forty-five are and have been automatically barred because they are not fit to carry out the onerous duties involved in civilian production. However, there are a great number of these men over forty-five who could be extremely useful and could carry out the duties required of them in these training centres just as well as younger men. I would ask the minister to consider giving a preference to older men who cannot take their places in industry, that they may have jobs in these training camps as guards, dishwashers, waiters, cooks or whatever it may be, to take the places of men more able to play their part in industry during these trying times.


Brooke Claxton: The course suggested by the hon. member is the one we are following.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood it was the civilian help the hon. member for Greenwood was speaking about, not particularly civil servants. There happens to be in my riding not only the largest but the finest army camp in Canada; as a matter of fact it is the finest engineering camp in the British empire. The hon. member for Nanaimo visited us there in an official capacity when the camp was being built. Since he left his official capacity we have added to that camp, under the general direction of the very efficient member representing that riding. At the present time we are trying to get as many civilians as possible. One of the things the army has to put up with -and I say this with all due deference to Queen's university-is the training of a great many young men in the summertime. We have them even from McGill university in your home town, Mr. Chairman. We are training those young men to be the officers of the future, because you know you can do almost anything with almost any material when it is trained in the Fraser valley. We also have in my riding the finest airport in Canada.


Mr. Slick:: Oh, go on.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I invite you to come and visit us.
Supply-National Defence


Leonard T. Stick: Come down to Gander.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Gander is not a military airport; Gander is where the hit and miss try to land between oceans. As I was saying, at that army camp we have these cadets. I speak as an old soldier with a certain amount of experience, though not very much. The first experience I had in the army was going around with a stick that had a nail in the end, picking up pieces of paper. The hon. member for Nanaimo knows more about these things than I do, bec.ause he also started as a private and rose to great heights where he could order men to do these things. My second experience was peeling onions. We did not have automatic peelers then; and if any hon. members here like to peel onions or potatoes by the sackful, I do not. Then we had another fatigue, which I understand, because of modern science and facilities, is not quite as onerous as it was in those days, when we had little cotton tarpaulins around these places which now have running water. It is a lot more efficient and easier to handle now.
I did not like those jobs, and I do not think the soldiers at the engineering camp in my riding like them either. These are the finest men, under the finest officers, in our whole army. They are volunteers who have offered to serve here or anywhere, and they do not want to peel potatoes and wash dishes for these fine young cadets taking summer training. For that reason only last week in Chilliwack we were advertising for civilians of the age group mentioned by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to take over this work from the troops who are carrying out this training in a very efficient manner. There are many things for which I might condemn this department, but this is not one of them. For instance, I would sooner devote my time to saying the Department of National Defence was underpaying the private soldier even today, than take up time suggesting there are too many men peeling potatoes. As far as I am concerned I would rather see three civilians peeling potatoes for four good soldiers than one good soldier peeling potatoes for a man and a half. I think it is a wise program for the national defence department to use all the civilians they can in that class of work. We are doing exactly the same thing at the Abbotsford airport; we are calling for civilians to do this kind of work. I think the hon. member for Greenwood will realize that civilian help soon multiplies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not mean that in the way some hon. members have taken it.
3368

Supply-National Defence I am serious about this; instead of condemning the minister and his department in this connection I think they should be congratulated. I would rather see the hon. member for Greenwood join with me in asking that the private soldier who signed up to go anywhere is paid a little bonus as compared with the man who has the very onerous task of driving a general's car here in Ottawa. We cannot talk pensions under this item, I understand, so let us do what we can to help the front line soldier, and let the civilians go on peeling potatoes for the man who after all is responsible for the fact that we are able to sit here and talk about anything we please.


Mr. Adamson:: 
Brooke Claxton: The hon. member asked a couple of questions. One was: What do they get for working overtime? The ordinary civil service rule, as I understand it, is that they get equivalent time off, in addition to their regular hours; and that is done, of course, in this department as far as possible. But I must say that many of the people working about there, that I am familiar with, would be off for some months if they took the overtime to which they are entitled. Most of them work a great deal more time than they take off through their credits. With regard to promotion, that is done through the ordinary civil service arrangements. As to accelerated promotion, if anyone does a superlatively good job, you can be sure he is pushed along, either in our department or in any other department. I am very glad indeed to have somebody who has done a good job in our department see a better opportunity in another department. I then give him the appropriate recommendation, unless I want to promote him to equivalent status in our department.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the promotion rest with the civil service commission?


Brooke Claxton: With the civil service
commission.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Not with the director, the senior officer or the chief of the branch in which they are working?


Brooke Claxton: No. We have civilian control.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Civilian control completely?


Brooke Claxton: Not completely, no; because the recommendation of a person by service personnel, like that of anyone else concerned, will help a great deal.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. member
for Fraser Valley unwittingly put his finger on the very point which is causing some of us concern. He said that civilian employees multiply in number; and that is rather the fear that some of us have. He went on to suggest that there might be three civilians peeling onions for four soldiers. There you are; he is suggesting the idea of the extravagant employment of civilians. I suppose he made the last remark in jest, but there is among some of us over here the fear that there is a danger of these civilian employees multiplying in number out of all proportion to the work they are doing.
The Minister of National Defence asked the hon. member for Greenwood: Have you

any particular cases in which you can point to extravagance? Mr. Chairman, members of parliament do not have the opportunity of going around and inspecting the various camps. We cannot go and see whether there is extravagance here and there. We have other duties to attend to. One of the duties that we as an opposition have is to try to find out whether there is any extravagance; and if there is the least fear or suspicion of it, it is our duty to offer suggestions as to how that might be checked.
The hon. member for Greenwood offered the suggestion that there should be some sort of committee of civilians. I do not think that is a new policy at all. In the past there have been committees-not necessarily composed of civilians-who have gone around, visiting camps and have seen whether the establishments are being padded, to use the army term. During this last war there were three inspectors general in Canada travelling around this country inspecting the units and reporting upon their administration; going into the camps and reporting not to the chief of the general staff but direct to the minister on questions of extravagance, where money could be saved, where there was inefficiency in organization and in administration, The office of inspector general existed, not always, but on and off between the two wars when there was a much smaller military establishment than there is now. I am going to offer the suggestion that now is the time to appoint a qualified officer of experience who will act as inspector general and who will be continually touring around the various camps and units, reporting to nobody else but the minister, keeping the minister informed if there is any extravagance, any padding of establishments, and where it may be possible to have one civilian peeling onions for four soldiers instead of three doing that sort of thing.
I am making that suggestion in all seriousness because I know that system worked effectively during the last war and that money was saved. It is all very well to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is quite true; but if it is going to cost us too much, we are going to go bankrupt, and we shall not have any pudding to eat, and we shall not have cake or anything else; but somebody else will be stepping in here and will be taking advantage of our ruined economy. We cannot be too careful about insisting upon this government's taking every possible step to ensure that there is no waste in any department.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As my name has been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, may I say another 80709-215i
Supply-National Defence word on this matter. I will admit that I might have been exaggerating when I spoke of three men peeling one sack of onions. But I must, disagree with my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo, although I hesitate to do so because naturally he has had far greater military experience than I. First we heard from the hon. member for Greenwood that we should have an efficiency expert come in here to tell us how to run the army. We have had a great many efficiency experts in the province from which I come. For instance, we have had about fourteen efficiency experts -most of them from the east unfortunately; some from the city of Montreal and some from the city of Toronto-to tell us how to cut educational costs. That great authority from the blossom riding of Kamloops will correct me if I am wrong, but that is one of the great troubles. We have had too many efficiency experts out there, as he knows, with too few results. I am going to disagree with the hon. member for Nanaimo, although he has had vast experience. But I think one of the troubles during the last war was that we had too many generals floating around; and instead of getting efficiency we got the direct opposite.
I know something about the camp in my riding; unlike my hon. friend, I visit the camp within my riding. If a member refrains from golfing or fishing, he finds time to visit the military institutions within his own riding, as I do. We have at that camp most efficient officers who check on this very thing. We do not need any generals coming in there, with red all over them, four batmen and two cars. We have efficient officers out there who will do that checking as to whether there is extravagance or not. I admit that I exaggerated with regard to three men peeling a sack of onions; but I am just as much interested in economy as is any other member of the committee. But in my opinion, you can over-expert a thing. I think that the biggest trouble down at what I believe is called Cartier square is that there are still too many experts playing around, too many generals. If we were to eliminate about half the generals and put a couple of sergeant-majors in there, they would get us some efficiency. I must disagree with the hon. member. I do not want any more generals in there. There are enough now.


Leonard T. Stick: Like John Knox's army, one general for every three soldiers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: One general for every two soldiers, I think my hon. friend said. I know that in the 29th battalion one soldier was equal to twenty from anywhere else.

Supply-National Defence But in all seriousness, may I say that I think you can overdo matters with respect to these experts. The most successfully run business in the province of British Columbia is the British Columbia Electric Company Limited. I say that without fear of contradiction. It is one of the most successfully run anywhere in Canada. Well, we had a change of management, and for a short time, owing to what they started to do out there, they brought in a Rhodes scholar as personnel director. These are facts. They brought in this efficiency expert, and what happened? The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows this is correct, and so does every other member from British Columbia. You could not get a job on the section unless you had a university degree. That was one of these experts' ideas.
I am not so keen on these experts, whether they are generals or privates. A little common sense can do these things. If the minister will get behind the officers he has in the Chilliwack army camp they will guarantee there will be no waste, no inefficiency, and we do not need any more generals fooling around there trying to tell us how to do it.


George Harris Hees: Our remarks in this regard are directed through you, sir, to the minister. Might it be possible for the minister to And it convenient to return now so that we can talk to him?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That comes from the
visitor from Toronto?


George Harris Hees: I should like to refer to some
of the remarks that the minister made following the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood. The minister seemed rather hurt that we had suggested that an efficiency survey of his 30,000 civilian employees might show some positive results. He implied that unless we could point our finger at some place where inefficiency was occurring, there was no justification for asking for a survey.
There has been no allegation by any member of the opposition, to my knowledge, that we have too many civil servants, simply because we have absolutely no way of knowing whether we have or not. We have not been taken into the confidence of the government. As the hon. member for Nanaimo said, we have not the time or the opportunity to go around to these camps and examine just what is going on there. All that we can do is to ask questions, and ask questions we certainly intend to continue doing.
less than one thousandth the size of the force that we .are dealing with here, that have had efficiency surveys. They have been able to cut down anywhere up to 25 per cent of the personnel they had on their staff before the survey took place, and with fewer staff they have been able to operate far more efficiently than they ever did before. This staff of 30,000 is no more than a business organization. What we are suggesting is that ordinary business practices, which have been employed by firms that must show a profit, might be employed and found useful there. It is a sincere suggestion by the members of the opposition to the minister. It is very regrettable that he should take this as a personal criticism of him and of his department, and find it necessary to cite the fighting qualities of our troops. There is nobody in this house who criticizes the fighting forces or even thinks for a moment that we have not got the finest army, navy and air force in the world. We know we have. The fighting men that we have are terrific. We all know that. We are simply suggesting ways in which we might help the minister make savings in a very large labour force. This is a suggestion which is utilized many times in the life of any successful business organization. .
Most business organizations, as anybody who is a businessman knows, are continually examining ways and means by which they can cut down personnel and increase their efficiency. Having been in the services, I know that there never was, and I am sure there never will be, a commanding officer in any service who ever willingly cut down on personnel, civilian or military. You just do not do it. The commanding officer does not have to pay the personnel. He does not have to show a profit. He simply wants a good operation to show his superior officers, and the more men he has on his staff the easier it is for him to do so. There is not the slightest incentive for any commanding officer to cut down on personnel, and he just does not do it. If you expect commanding officers to be efficiency experts, you are barking up the wrong tree, because they are just not going to do it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is not so.


George Harris Hees: If you were in the service, and
if you know of any commanding officer who ever willingly cut down on personnel, I should like you to cite the case right now.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Here is one man here who
has just said that.


George Harris Hees: Absolute nonsense.
Regarding this idea of an efficiency survey, Mr. Ferrie:	That is all you fellows have,
I have known a number of companies, of just the one remark.
I Mr. Cruickshank.]


George Harris Hees: The idea of an efficiency survey is not a new one. Since the last war, this government has had an efficiency survey carried out in certain departments, by the firm of Walter Gordon and Company of Toronto. This government saw fit to employ Mr. Gordon and his associates to do the kind of job we are suggesting should be done on a very large scale, and therefore the suggestion is not a new one.
The minister also suggested that perhaps this was extremely boring to hon. members; that the opposition were in some way at fault for taking up the time of the house by going into these matters. Well, obviously, the minister would rather have it done in the committee of the whole than in an armed services committee. If that is the way the minister wishes to have it done, that is the way the opposition are going to proceed. We have suggested the other way. He wants it done this way. We feel it is our job to scrutinize these tremendous expenditures, to ask all the questions that we feel need to be asked, and we fully intend to continue to do so.


An hon. Member:: Ask questions.


George Harris Hees: Nobody in the opposition that
I know of has suggested that they would not want civilian personnel to replace military personnel, or naval, or air force personnel. That is common sense. We would like it to be done to the greatest extent possible; but we would like to feel that the tremendous amount of the taxpayers' money that is paid out to these people to do this job is paid out in such a way that the people who receive it will operate as efficiently as possible, and cost the taxpayers of this country as little as possible. That is all we are asking. It is a simple business proposition, accepted by all successful business firms. It is a sensible and sincere suggestion. I would like to hear the minister say why he is so much against a survey, as suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, being carried out, in order to see if we cannot cut down on this very large civilian labour force, and perhaps save the taxpayers some money.


An hon. Member:: We do not want duplication.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to give the
hon. member all the assurance he would like to have, but I could only do that if I felt honestly they were good things to do. Unlike a good many corporations, we have a continuous check-up on the efficiency of government operations, first, through the department; second, through the civil service commission; third, through the treasury board; and fourth, through parliament itself.
Supply-National Defence
The figures I gave before indicated that, in regard to the efficiency of government administration, judged by the proportion of civil servants to the over-all labour force, we were not too bad; in fact, we were the best in any country that is comparable at all.
Our experience in regard to efficiency experts is varied. If you get very good ones they give you very good advice on a pretty high level, but you have got to apply it right across the board, and so we have to go in the end to our own department, to the civil service commission and to the treasury board working together to apply anything that has produced any consequence by one of those efficiency experts. I am all for it, you bet. I have had them. They usually produce an increase in the over-all strength required to do a job, but-


George Harris Hees: The right one.


Brooke Claxton: Well, who is to pick the right one? We have had this kind of operation done in respect of certain things in our department and we are still working on them.


George Harris Hees: What is the opinion of the government of the job that Gordon and Company of Toronto did some years ago?


Brooke Claxton: I think Walter Gordon is a fine fellow.


George Harris Hees: And did he do a good job?


Brooke Claxton: I think he did a great job. I think he also did a good job when he advised me in respect of certain changes which should be made in my own department. And I will consult Walter Gordon any time he and I find it convenient to get together-you bet! There is no quarrel about that.
But when it comes to doing an over-all cutting job, then the only cutting knife there is is that of treasury board. And that has to be rough and tough; and that is done by my colleague the Minister of Finance. And what he has done in order to reduce the total number of civil servants outside the Department of National Defence has been quite amazing, in this time of national growth. I think I have impressed upon our department-because we are spending about three and a half times as much as all the other departments combined-that they have to be responsible to the utmost cent. And that is what I hope we will do.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would suggest to the minister that the best, as judged by any standard, whether it be that of another nation or another department within our own. government service, does not necessarily mean that the job we are producing is the best that can be produced. I would ask the minister whether he would give serious consideration

Supply-National Defence to an examination of all these services, with a view to replacing men where possible with women, so as to release those men for active service.
In discussing this matter before the dinner hour it was suggested that there were many places in the. services where women could serve admirably so as to release men for active duty. I also say on behalf of the women that they will carry a great load- possibly greater than that now being carried.


Brooke Claxton: Wherever possible that will be done.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It occurred to me, after having listened to the past several hours of discussion, that if the Kremlin had recording equipment in this building they would have considered by this time that any contemplated war they might start would be half won already.
The minister has been accused of giving broad and general answers to questions. But in all my experience here I have never listened to such a battery of broad and general statements and questions as I have heard during the past several hours. The whole thing is boring, as someone has asserted. I think it is boring particularly because there has been a complete absence of ability on the part of someone to sink his teeth into something concrete. It appears to me as though it might be the product of frustration.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Greenwood, and I would sum up what I heard him say, or what I thought I heard him say. He said, in effect, that something should be done, that something may be wrong-although he was not just sure what may be wrong. But something may be wrong, he thought, and therefore something should be done; and since he could not determine what was wrong-"Would you appoint an efficiency expert to tell me what is wrong, so that I can criticize?"
It is all right to talk about efficiency; we all desire to have it; but efficiency has taught us one thing, if nothing else, and that is that as a rule, and especially as applied to the armed services, where efficiency experts have been employed it has resulted in the immediate issue of a grand collection of new forms which are used for a short period of time, and then promptly forgotten-and, as the hon. member for Peace River suggests to me, as a rule they are put out, at the rate of twenty-five copies each.
I feel there are several extremely important issues relative to national defence that could be occupying our time profitably now; and that we should not have to listen to the

mere assertion that something may be wrong. I will criticize when I can find something wrong, something which I believe should be criticized. But I think we are not justified in repeating the simple assertion that something may be wrong-"We don't know what is wrong, but if you will tell us what is wrong, and let us determine how it is wrong, we will have something to criticize".
I am not questioning the right of anyone to adopt that course of action; but in my estimation when we have certain much more important issues before us including, I may say to my friends of the Progressive Conservative party, the whole manpower question, we should devote our time to a discussion of those questions, which are far more important than these simple issues to which we have been devoting the past several hours today and on previous occasions.
I suggest that in these grave times we would be well advised to get down to business and deal with certain of those factors which, to me, are of much greater importance at this extremely serious time. I doubt if anyone will deny that these are serious times.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who has just spoken, and who has so generously given us the benefit of his great experience-and he seems to have had vast experience-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -in the matter of efficiency experts dealing with military establishments. I should like to ask him the number of these, and if he would give us the benefit of his experience in that regard. He seems to have had a great deal of experience. He has said that in every case this or that has happened. Then, could we not be honoured or favoured by a further discourse in which he would set out specific instances where efficiency experts have caused less efficiency than before they started?


Frederick Davis Shaw: 
George Harris Hees: I would ask the hon. member to name some particular experiences where efficiency experts tried to do a job, and failed to do it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I wonder if we are not getting away from the subject matter of the discussion.


Alphonse Fournier: Very far away.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is the subject of civil salaries and wages. I know that certain questions have been asked respecting the efficiency of civilian employees, but I do not think we should undertake a discussion respecting the firms or experts engaged in the examination of personnel as to efficiency, and the like.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have just ruled that the matter is closed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask the minister one question with regard to security. We are dealing with civilian employees of the Department of National Defence, and acting in their different capacities nearly all of them at one time or another will have access to material that is restricted, if not secret and top secret in character. What is the machinery for screening prospective employees who have to take the oath of secrecy under the Official Secrets Act? What percentage have taken this oath? What percentage of those who have been screened have taken the oath? I am not saying this in any spirit of criticism, but in view of what is going on in the world I do not think we can be too careful and we would like to know what is being done.


Brooke Claxton: All of those who have access to top secret, secret or restricted information are screened before they have such access. All civil servants take the oath.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is that the official secrets oath?


Brooke Claxton: It is the oath of allegiance and, in some cases, of secrecy.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does every civil servant, no matter what department or branch he is in, take the oath of secrecy?


Brooke Claxton: It takes some time to get around to all of them, but that is done.
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: The last item in these details concerns 80 personnel employed by the coordinator of civil defence, and I believe that it is under this item that the salaries of these employees would be paid and possibly also the salary of the co-ordinator of civil defence. I do not know of any other item under which we could ask questions relating to civil defence. On May 11 the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a statement with reference to civil defence, after which the leader of the opposition stated, and I quote from page 2941 of Hansard:
If that disposes of the review of civil defence at this stage, recognizing the item will of course come up again at a later point when it is called-


Mr. Martin:: I hope not tonight.
He was referring to May 11. At that time we deferred to his wish, but I know that some hon. members would like to discuss a number of general matters dealing with civil defence and it would seem that this is the appropriate and perhaps the only time when we could discuss those matters. Would either the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of National Health and Welfare be prepared now to answer questions on civil defence?


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member for Nanaimo is quite right. My understanding was that it was agreed by the committee that we would deal with civil defence when that came up after the completion of the items on page 269 under defence services, departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence. At that time I asked the committee if they wanted to proceed with civil defence as the minister responsible for that branch was present, and they indicated that they wanted to do that, and did. That was done. There was quite a discussion at that time. If there is a desire to revive that at some future date when he is here, I will bring it to his attention.


An hon. Member:: He is here now.


Brooke Claxton: All right, if he is prepared, it does not matter. But we have already passed from that subject.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, we have not.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I am quite wrong. We have no way of controlling this committee, no way at all except by agreement. We have had agreement three times and each time it has not been observed. However, we will work along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say one thing in deference to my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. As far as I am concerned, my duties not being anything as onerous as his, and knowing how his time is preoccupied,

Supply-National Defence knowing something of his ensuing engagements, it might meet in part what he had in mind if we could dispose of the matters with which he is directly concerned on the understanding that questions could be put later on with regard to civil defence. I would be most happy to meet his wishes if that is what he had in mind.


Brooke Claxton: Let us get rid of it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is the wish of the committee to go on, I am ready to do so.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the Minister of National Defence said, "Let us get rid of it now".


Brooke Claxton: Yes, but with all respect I think we have agreed-I think Mr. Chairman will agree with me-three times, informally it is true-it cannot be binding on any member-that we will proceed in a certain way. I suggest that that is the only way a democratic country can proceed, by agreement and decision and, once a matter has been decided upon, to move on from that. It is a difficult situation because at any stage any member can upset the agreement. It has been upset. Let us go back.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If I remember correctly, when the Minister of National Defence made his statement on the first item of general administration and was suggesting procedure he indicated that the items relating to civil defence would be dealt with by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and on this item we have had a wide general discussion pertaining to civil defence.
I understood that the agreement was _ that we were to carry on with whatever items belonged to the Minister of National Defence and were to have a detailed study of the civil defence items with which the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be concerned. That was the understanding.


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe the salaries paid to the 80 employees in the office of the civilian defence co-ordinator, referred to on page 2963 of Hansard, will be paid under this item. According to the statement on that page of Hansard the total is $271,702.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has it not been announced by the Minister of National Defence that payments to be made in connection with civil defence would come under his vote, but that later they would be transferred?


Brooke Claxton: Let us deal with them now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is true, as the minister announced in his opening statement, that while these salaries come under the national defence vote, later on they would 
be transferred to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It was suggested that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would give any information that was requested when we came to discuss the items pertaining to national defence. Suppose we pass this item covering civil salaries and wages, which would provide for the payment of salaries having to do with civil defence, and then later on the Minister of National Health and Welfare will come before the committee and the eighty people in whom the hon. member for Nanaimo is interested can be dealt with at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the money have been voted for the eighty persons in the meantime?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Necessarily it would be if we adopt this vote, but the committee would reserve its right to discuss the item when the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes before it to discuss the four or five items pertaining to civil defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, it would seem a little strange to vote the money, simply reserving the right to elicit information later regarding these eighty persons. Would not the proper thing to do be to defer the item until that remaining matter has likewise been disposed of?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I agree with the hon. member that it would not be done unless the committee is unanimously agreeable to it. I do not want to have a long discussion over procedure. If hon. members do not agree to that course then the Minister of National Health and Welfare has offered to reply now.


Brooke Claxton: In reply to the questions of hon. members, I think I ought to give them the details of the estimates on civil defence as we arranged them back in December or January. That is what I understand has been asked for. They are as follows: Civil salaries and wages, $271,702; travel and removal expenses, $88,500; freight, express and cartage, $5,000. Hon. members will observe we are following the ordinary form of arrangement for all estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In order to enable members to follow the minister, may I ask him to tell us where this appears in the estimates?


Brooke Claxton: It is on page 269. It provides for a vote of $13,419,162 of which part is for civil defence, and I am taking out for the hon. member the items related to civil defence.


Mr. Green:: Taking them out.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: From each item?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. We have followed the items established by the comptroller of the treasury and the treasury board. I think the last one I mentioned was freight, express and cartage, $5,000; telephones, telegraph and other communication services, $2,500; printing of departmental reports and other publications, $51,500; office stationery supplies, equipment and furnishings, $18,500; materials and supplies, $4,303,500.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was that figure?


Brooke Claxton: $4,303,500. Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $350,000. All other expenditures other than special categories, $5,000, a total of $5,096,202.


George Randolph Pearkes: What was the total?


Brooke Claxton: I should indicate that our estimate is that of that amount it will not be possible or likely that we will expend during 1951-52 $900,000, so the amount in the estimates is $4,196,202.


George Randolph Pearkes: 


Mr. Blair:: These figures are rather confusing. Did I understand the minister to say that only $900,000 of the total amount is going to be spent in 1951-52?


Brooke Claxton: $900,000 would not likely be spent.


William Gourlay Blair: $900,000 will not be spent?


Brooke Claxton: That is the estimate.


William Gourlay Blair: So you are going to spend approximately $4 million?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


William Gourlay Blair: May I ask the minister how many civilians are employed in this organization and what salaries they are receiving?


Brooke Claxton: Eighty.


William Gourlay Blair: What are the eighty people getting? What are their salaries? What does the co-ordinator receive?


Brooke Claxton: $10,000, less of course what he gets as an army pensioner. As a major general having thirty-five years plus service I should think that he was working full time, and working very well, for about $3,500 a year.


William Gourlay Blair: What are the salaries of the other eighty?


Brooke Claxton: The projected figure throughout the year is eighty but at the present tune there are only twenty-seven.


William Gourlay Blair: What do you propose to pay each of them per year?
Supply-National Defence


Paul Joseph James Martin: They will be paid in accordance with the regular salaries for persons engaged in that kind of work.


William Gourlay Blair: What is the regular salary for people engaged in that kind of work?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend tell me what post he has in mind particularly?


William Gourlay Blair: What are the positions? We do not know what the set-up is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are filing clerks. There is a solicitor, for instance, in my own department who is now doing legal work in connection with civil defence. The work of directing the medical committee is now being carried on by a regular official of the Department of National Health and Welfare who has made a specialty in this particular field. We are also contemplating securing the services of one or two individuals who, we hope, will find it possible and convenient to contribute their services to the government without pay in this particular work. I have in mind one who is an export in the field of telecommunications.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, may I ask which estimates we are discussing? If it is civilian defence, or rather the lack of civilian defence, I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare some questions.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are now discussing the sub-item, civil salaries and wages.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I cannot ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare any questions.


An hon. Member:: Sure you can.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are discussing the civilians employed in the office of General Worthington who is in charge of civil defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By leave of the committee there was ordered to be placed on Hansard this afternoon certain information with regard to personnel and salaries on the civil administration staff of this department. Are the positions and salaries of the persons to be attached to the civil defence organization set forth in that list? We have not seen it yet. Of course it was ordered to be printed but we have not seen it.


Brooke Claxton: It has been available since 3.30.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those of us who were in the house when this business came up this afternoon still have not seen the figures. We shall see them in Hansard tomorrow, but we have not got them tonight.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I deal with my hon. friend's question. With respect to those officials who were in the civil defence division under the Department of National Defence, those persons will be in that list, but there are now engaged officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, such as the one in charge of the medical committee to whom I referred, who is normally a functionary of the Department of National Health and Welfare but who is now doing civil defence work almost exclusively. His name would not appear on that list. He will continue as an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare. He is the chairman of one of our divisions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Apparently I am in order in asking the minister a question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member for Eglinton wants to put a supplementary question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several questions that arise out of the minister's statement. In the first place, he will appreciate that we have not seen that list. We shall see it tomorrow. Do the personnel to be attached to the civil defence administration appear in segregated form on that list, or are they mingled with all other civilian personnel on the administration staff?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am advised that they are
not segregated.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then do I understand also
from the minister's last statement that in the case of personnel of the Department of National Health and Welfare who are engaged in the work of civil defence, they will continue to be on the staff of his department and will draw their salaries as officials of that department, and not through the Department of National Defence?


Murdo William Martin: As my hon. friend will appreciate, that must be fairly clear. The transfer of responsibilities took place after the estimates had been decided upon. If the present situation continues next year obviously those now engaged in civil defence who are attached to the Department of National Defence will have their attachment transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare and perforce those in national health and welfare will continue to appear, as indeed they are, as members of the staff of that department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then in taking the figure
of eighty as the strength to which the staff is to be built up, will that include officials or personnel still attached to the Department of National Health and Welfare, or will it be in addition to them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some twenty-seven persons
are now on strength at the head office and at the training school, and approximately sixty additional positions may be set up. That would include officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare as such. I am not saying all those positions are going to be filled. As I go through the work I feel that some of those posts need not be filled, in view of the fact that some of our own officials can deal with these matters. However, I cannot be too precise in that particular.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even accepting' the minister's closing reservation, would he indicate to us how this personnel of eighty, not including those on the staff of his own department, was arrived at? Can the minister give us an outline of the general functions which those eighty people were expected to perform when that number was arrived at? There must have been some planning done before that figure was reached. What is the break-down? Can the minister give us the different categories within the group, and some indication of the functions to be discharged by at least the senior officials of that group of eighty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, for instance, in my
judgment it is not necessary to create a special post or posts in the legal division, because the personnel in the legal division of the national health and welfare department have the time and ability to deal with legal matters. It is not necessary to create special posts for certain medical assignments, because my department has certain people who are trained and whose time will permit them to give their services to this group. In our Indian health service it will be possible to utilize a number of our personnel to do work which, if this had been left as it was, it might not have been possible to get done. The instructors in the training school now in progress at Connaught Ranges are not entirely special appointments; two of our own officials who have had training at the civil defence training school in the United Kingdom are being attached for that purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I raise a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, and I would like a ruling. I was ruled out of order when I asked some questions of the Minister of Resources and Development, and now I think the minister is entirely out of order. If we are going to talk about civil defence let us all know, so the rest of us can talk about it too. I thought we were on the national defence estimates. If we are going to open up the matter of civil defence I want to say a lot about the lack of civil defence in my province.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
for Fraser Valley will appreciate that when a minister replies he requires perhaps more latitude in order to give a full explanation than hon. members would be allowed in putting their questions. What we are discussing now is the Department of National Defence, the item covering civil salaries and wages. Among these civilian personnel for whom money is voted under this item are some eighty civilians employed in the office of civil defence. We are discussing civil defence under this item because some employees belonging to the civil defence branch receive their salaries under this item.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I quite appreciate that; so apparently I am in order if I go on with a discussion of civil defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking to a point of order. I sat down for Toronto the last time; I am not sitting down this time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Both hon. members will please take their seats. I think we must continue with the discussion of this item covering civil salaries and wages. If the hon. member for Fraser Valley wishes to ask questions coming within the scope of this item, he will be perfectly in order. Now, the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was just going to ask the minister to complete his answer to me. He got as far as the instructors. So far in effect he has said that they do not need any more personnel on the legal side, or on the medical side, or in health services, or as instructors. I am wondering what the eighty are going to do. So far we have not been told, though we have been told the people they do not need. Can the minister answer the question, please?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I most certainly can answer it, and I think I have answered it. I have said there are now twenty-seven posts. There was a plan for sixty additional posts. As I see it at the moment-and I can only speak of the moment' because we are having discussions with the provinces, who have some obligations in connection with this matter- it will not be necessary to fill all these sixty posts. But that matter depends upon contingencies which I cannot possibly foresee at this moment. For instance, there was the thought of some nursing aides. I find that we have in our own department personnel of that kind who can be utilized.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the committee will commend any minister who is seeking to use his present staff for suitable purposes instead
Supply-National Defence of building up a big staff which is not necessary. Are we to take the minister's last statement to indicate his present view that none of the additional sixty are likely to be required?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say more than I have said for the time being.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister made a statement which he may not have realized was somewhat ambiguous. He indicated his present view was that the other sixty would not be required.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not say that. I said that at the moment it would not be necessary to fill the sixty posts but that I could not foresee all possible contingencies. We are now having negotiations with the provinces in respect to this matter and it may be that they will not be prepared to assume certain roles the government believes the provinces should be prepared to assume. Those are circumstances that have to be borne in mind. I cannot say more and be as unambiguous as I know my esteemed and hon. friend wants me to be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my highly esteemed friend the minister be kind enough, then, to say what the twenty-seven persons who I understand are engaged in civil defence exclusively are doing? What is the set-up?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, there is General Worthington, the civil defence co-ordinator. There is his assistant; there is Colonel Croteau, who is in charge of the school. Under him are other officials.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the school I think there are five. Those are permanent. They are helping in one way and another. There is the stenographic staff. There are clerks. There are one or two officers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many stenographers and how many clerks?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Offhand, I do not know how many there are; but I could give you that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not able to hear what the minister said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know offhand how many clerks or stenographers there are. But I can tell the hon. member that the general thinks that there are not enough.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does the minister think?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think a happy compromise is likely the right decision.

Supply-National Defence Mr. Fleming: I am serious, Mr. Chairman, in asking for this information as to the functional break-down of the present staff. If the minister has not this information available tonight, perhaps he would be agreeable to providing the committee with it later. He may not be able to push a button and get information in five minutes, as one minister said this afternoon that he could. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not push buttons with such immediate results. But would he be kind enough to obtain that information for us during the course of the consideration of this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the committee is interested in this, first of all, because of the paramount importance, under present conditions, of civil defence. I think the committee will want the fullest information about the plans that are being laid for preparation for civil defence in this country.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member will realize that he cannot go beyond asking questions pertaining to the employees that come under this vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say to the hon. member that I shall be glad to do as he has requested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I am entitled to make some comment upon the number of employees in relation to the responsibility parliament has to expect of them. The minister has indicated that he thinks that twenty-seven apparently are going to be needed,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as he foresaw the job at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I do not know what the minister said, because he intimated that, as he sees the situation now, the twenty-seven, as I understood him, would be sufficient to do the job; and he says he does not think it will be necessary to fill the sixty posts.


Murdo William Martin: We might save a great deal of time if my hon. friend will allow me to repeat what I said. What I said was that we now have twenty-seven posts. Plans have been made for sixty others. I do not believe we will perhaps need the full sixty but I cannot make a definite commitment at the present time, for the reasons that I gave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has now changed his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Earlier, when I was trying to clear up this ambiguity, in his statement the minister said he did not think it would be necessary to fill the sixty posts. Now he says he does not think it will be necessary to fill the full sixty posts. That is a different matter entirely.


Mr. Gardiner:: That is what he said from the beginning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Maybe he is going to fill fifty-nine.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Maybe we will get our proceedings in order, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely this is a serious matter in all the municipalities of this country which could easily be targets either for attack from abroad or by a fifth column here in Canada.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I will again ask the hon. member, in his remarks, not to go beyond questions or comments pertaining to the employees who come under this vote. If his remarks are to be relevant to the item under discussion, that is what he will have to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With	great	respect,	Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: My ruling has been given, and it is not debatable. I know that the hon. member will want to enlarge upon that. But I have asked him for the second time to observe the rules, and I will expect him to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With	great	respect,	Mr. Chairman, may I say that I cannot imagine anything more relevant to the matter of this situation which the minister is describing to the committee tonight.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member
has no imagination.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. We had a general discussion on civil defence. Now we are past the stage of general discussion. We are discussing a specific item. The hon. member for Eglinton may disagree with the chairman when the latter does not think that certain remarks are relevant. But it so happens that someone must take the responsibility of deciding whether or not a discussion is relevant. Although he disagrees with me, I say that his remarks are not relevant. I have made a ruling, and that ruling is not debatable. The hon. member may appeal that ruling, but that is all he can do. He must observe the rules.


George Randolph Pearkes: For the first time tonight,
Mr. Chairman, we have been told the total figure which is going to be spent on civil, defence-


Murdo William Martin: If the hon. member will
permit me to do so, I should like to say here that I gave that figure the other night, when I spoke, in outlining the general policy of the government in this matter. I gave it in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kamloops, who nods his head in approval.


George Randolph Pearkes: It was given tonight and
broken down into detail. I feel that the people of the country are going to be stunned when they hear that we are spending only $4 million on civil defence out of a defence budget of almost $2 billion, and that they are going to ask very definitely this question: What is the co-ordinator of civil defence doing? I feel that I can endorse every word that the Minister of National Defence said a few minutes ago-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I again rise to a point
of order, Mr. Chairman, and I want a ruling. My municipality is just as much interested in civil defence as is any other municipality. If these other hon. members are going to be allowed to discuss civil defence in general, under national defence estimates, then I want to know whether I am going to be accorded the same privilege. Either we are in order or we are not in order; and I maintain that this general discussion is out of order.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order?


Solon Earl Low: No, I do not wish to speak to the point of order. I want to get on with the business.


Louis-René Beaudoin: A point of order
has been raised.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to speak to the
point of order, something which I seldom do. What I should like to know is this. If we are not going to be able to discuss these other items on civil defence now, when are we going to be able to do so? The minister gave a break-down under the heading of salaries, travelling expenses, freight, telephones, et cetera. On the basis of your ruling that is being discussed, I would take it that when we come, for example, to the item of travelling and the removal expenses, which is the third item down on page 269, we will discuss this $88,000 of travelling expenses which the minister gave in his break-down.
If we are going to carry on in that way, I would submit that it is going to result in a disjointed discussion in connection with civil defence, and it is going to be extremely difficult to know just where we are at at any given time. There will be this constant
Supply-National Defence difficulty over whether this question can be asked or that question can be asked. I would humbly suggest that it would be much better for us to take up at one time all the questions we are going to ask with regard to civil defence and get them out of the way. I think that procedure would expedite matters considerably. Whether we do it now or whether we do it at a later time, I do not care. But I would suggest that it could all be done at the same time instead of being scattered all through the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon.
member for Calgary East has made a pertinent suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just going to suggest
that I might act on that very suggestion.


George Randolph Pearkes: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to give the information that the hon. member for Calgary East has asked for, covering not only the third item, with the consent of the committee, if it is felt that that is the best way of dealing with the matter. As for myself, I think perhaps it is.


George Randolph Pearkes: On the point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Calgary East asked me to do that. If the hon. member for Nanaimo disagrees with him, I will have to ask the leader of the opposition to make a decision as to which of the two hon. members I shall recognize.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is perfectly ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing a point of order. I do not mind whether this whole subject of civil defence is discussed or not. But under this particular item, the salary of the co-ordinator of civil defence is paid. I am asking, or I started to ask, questions with regard to the duties and functions of that officer. This is the right place to do that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: If you want to go on to further questions, well and good. Here would be perhaps a good opportunity to branch out. But surely I am in order to discuss the duties of that official.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Nanaimo is perfectly right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is asking me the duties of the civil defence co-ordinator.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was very much interrupted when I started to ask them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must say that my young friend, the hon. member for Calgary East,

Supply-National Defence participated in the intervention. Now that we have peace for a few moments I will be glad to deal directly with my hon. friend's question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thanks for the "young" anyway.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As he knows, the civil defence co-ordinator is a distinguished soldier and a man who has, with regard to a very difficult task, admittedly done a very good job as civil defence co-ordinator in this country, as will be reflected in the opinion which I know every minister in each of our provinces responsible for civilian defence would vouchsafe to give.
The job of the civil defence co-ordinator in principle is the same as that of his predecessors, of whom Dr. Manion, a former leader of the opposition, was a very distinguished one. The job consists, under ministerial authority, responsible to the government as a whole, in establishing liaison with those groups, such as the provincial governments, who are responsible for their creatures the municipalities, and in establishing relationships with them in trying to bring about a policy of co-ordination in respect of civil defence.
Hon. gentlemen will remember what I said in my opening statement, that the federal government, in the pursuit of this problem, does not feel that it is possible to provide at the centre, on an operational level, a full effective measure of civil defence. We -have certain functions, the function of getting out training manuals, of publications, all of which come under the civil defence co-ordinator, the use of films, the purchase of equipment of various kinds, which we are prepared to give to the civil defence directors and workers who operate under the provinces or under the municipalities-generally we have the role of co-ordination.
But one should not judge the adequacy of civil defence in this country only by the recital of policy, or the recital of achievement of the federal government; for we cannot do this job alone, as I said quite frankly the other day. If one is going to provide for a measure of adequate civil defence it has to be done through a policy of decentralization, through the provinces and through the municipalities, which must carry on the primary responsibility of an operational endeavour.
I am happy to be able to say that as a result of the work of the civil defence co-ordinator, who has worked tirelessly during the last year and a half, every city in Canada but one, of 50,000 and over, has a civil defence director. These directors are paid by the


municipality, and the civil defence co-ordinator of this country has been largely responsible for stimulating action by way of appointments in so many of these municipalities.
One of his first jobs of course was to establish contact with the United Kingdom civil defence authorities. It was the civil defence co-ordinator who made all the detailed preliminary arrangements for the agreement that we were able to arrive at with the United States in respect of a policy of common civil defence, so that we could say that for purposes of civil defence there would be no border.
It is the function of the civil defence co-ordinator to continue contacts with these various bodies. To give an example, the other day in Sault Ste. Marie-this is a point of some interest in this connection-the minister in charge, the Hon. Mr. Welsh, telephoned me and asked me if the services of the civil defence co-ordinator could be used to deal with a problem that had arisen in connection with a civil defence matter in Sault Ste. Marie. The civil defence co-ordinator was dispatched there. This morning I had a letter from Colonel Welsh commenting upon the value of these services and other matters.
A month ago the civil defence co-ordinator went to the province of British Columbia, to deal with the government of that province.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He had a task there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He met with the officials of the city of Vancouver as well in connection with his task.
The civil defence co-ordinator was responsible for the three schools that we had during the course of the winter, as a result of which we have trained over 200 people, who in turn have gone back to their municipalities to take on local civil defence direction jobs, or perform some function or other in that particular.
It was the civil defence co-ordinator who organized the present school that is under way at Connaught Ranges. I have just given a general survey which I know my hon. friend will appreciate. I may say that General Worthington has a very full job, and I want to say what I said at the beginning; he is doing that job admirably.


George Randolph Pearkes: I doubt whether there are
many people in this country who are more familiar with the integrity, industry and the great ability of General Worthington than I am. I am going on record to say that never has a public servant in this land been asked to make bricks with less straw than General Worthington is being asked to do

today. I say that out of a total of almost $2 billion to be spent on defence we are spending now the small sum of about $4 million for the whole of civil defence. I repeat what 1 said a few moments ago; I believe this country will be stunned when it realizes what a paltry effort is being made in this direction.
The minister has told us some of the functions. You have instructors; you have a school at Connaught. Films are to be purchased. Then there is some suggestion of linking in with the medical officers in the department looking after Indians to help out. The big function which has to be faced today as far as civil defence is concerned is that of establishing a warning system, and there is no warning system whatever in this country at the present time. I believe no results have been achieved in so far as co-ordinating a plan for a warning system with United States-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute; I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but he is now dealing with policy, and he is making a general statement. I am prepared to take up and answer point by point what my hon. friend is saying and to sh w point by point how inaccurate he is. If my hon. friend is to be allowed to make this general statement I want to tell him that I will expect immediately after he has spoken to be permitted to make a similar statement by way of reply.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, that is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, ruled the hon. member for Eglinton out of order because he was engaging in a general discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He ruled me out, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He ruled my little-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not little.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He ruled out the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I would think it would be very unfair to accord to the hon. member for Nanaimo the privilege that was denied to the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I would simply call your attention, sir, to the fact that on this item, unless I am allowed to carry on, as the hon. member for Calgary East has suggested, the hon. member who has just spoken is wholly out of order. If he is going to be in order he must confine himself to the item under discussion, namely, staff.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was confining myself to the item under discussion. I asked, what were the functions of his official who is paid under this item, and certain functions were enumerated. I call attention to the fact that the function of providing a warning system
Supply-National Defence was not mentioned. I now ask the minister, what has been done to provide a warning system?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very well prepared to deal with that, but the chairman ruled that that kind of question was out of order in this discussion. There will be an opportunity later on.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Agar Rodney Adamson: On a point of order, sir, I think you reversed your ruling after the hon. member for Calgary East-


George Alexander Cruickshank: He did not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -suggested that it would be more advantageous for this committee to deal with this matter fully at this time. I think I am correct in that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If I may comment
on the remarks just made by the hon. member for York West, I would point out that I did not reverse my ruling after listening to the hon. member for Calgary East. I rose to say that he made a pertinent suggestion. His suggestion was either that we deal with the civil defence votes now, or that we do that later. I did say that the discussion must be relevant however to whatever item is before the committee, from now on. Hon. members will recall that we had a general discussion which was opened by a statement from the Minister of National Defence. At the conclusion of the general discussion it was the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo that, since civilian defence was to be dealt with by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it might be appropriate at that time to have a general discussion of civilian defence.
That general discussion took place, having been opened by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. member for Lanark took part in it; and I believe it was the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo that we begin the study of the details appearing at page 269 in the estimates. We have been doing that.
As it appeared that the debate relating to civil salaries and wages was exhausted, it was then pointed out that since there were eighty people employed in the civilian defence branch, the Minister of National Health and Welfare could be available to reply to questions asked on that score. When the hon. member for Nanaimo asks as to the functions of General Worthington, or anyone on his staff, he is perfectly in order; but when anyone proceeds to enlarge upon the functions of that particular branch, and to discuss policy and to refer to the astonishment that might be expressed by municipalities across Canada in respect of the small amount made
3382	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence available for that purpose, I suggest he is not at that point speaking to the item under discussion. I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo realizes that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry if I veered from
the straight and narrow path. I assure you it was unintentional. Would it be in order to ask if, as one of his duties, the co-ordinator of civilian defence is responsible for the provision or the establishment of a warning system?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: If so, what has been done?
What results have accrued?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I am in order in answering I would be prepared to answer; but I am not going to answer if I am going to be out of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Go ahead;
you don't know about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says to go
ahead; but we have to have order. I think the hon. member for Calgary East made a sensible suggestion and I urge that we act upon it. The hon. member for Nanaimo disagreed, and we are in this difficulty as a result. I am prepared to act on the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary East.


George Alexander Drew: May I make this comment as
to the difficulty which would be raised if we try to make too fine a distinction as to what may or may not be asked in connection with [DOT] wages and salaries. This is a very important subject which, for reasons which I do not think anyone is criticizing, does not appear as a segregated item in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. It is wrapped up in a number of other items all contained within the bracket of departmental administration. It is perfectly true that the amount that would be set aside for the physical material, including such things as warning systems and things of that kind, would not come in under the first line, it would be included somewhere down below-although we do not know where.
It seems to me that where we have a wrapped-up package like this, we shall get along faster and further if we carry forward with the idea the minister seemed ready to accept, namely that this be opened up for discussion and that we do not try to put it into airtight compartments. One might ask under wages and salaries what form of organization was built up to handle equipment, and then when the question was asked as to whether that type of equipment was available the ruling might be that such a question would be out of order. You would be left with the fire squad, but with the hose pipe somewhere else.
[The Deputy Chairman.]

It seems to me a reasonable approach to the suggestion is that, in view of the fact that, (for reasons which we need not debate at ' the moment, this item is rolled up in a number of other items, it would be best to be prepared to deal with it, to let the minister discuss this subject and to have questions asked. I believe time would be saved if that were done.


Alphonse Fournier: There is a lot of good in the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. But would it not be proper to apply the same principle to this item for departmental administration, in the Department of National Defence? If we take them in bulk, and have a discussion on each item at random, without just limiting ourselves to civil salaries and wages, could we not apply that good principle to the whole department, and thus take up the item of $13,419,162- because this afternoon, although we were on the first item of civil salaries and .wages, most of the time was spent in a discussion of other details' which go to make up this total sum of $13,419,162. I see no way of making any progress, unless we permit questions on each of these items, so that when we have exhausted these subjects we would carry that amount.
The leader of the opposition is correct in what he says, but he should go a step further and apply it to the whole item, as it concerns national defence.


George Alexander Drew: As the minister has directed his remarks to what I have just said, I should like to point out the very great difference. The Department of National Defence is one that, in one form or another, has existed in Canada both before and since confederation. There has been a long-established organization, which the members who have been interested are able to understand. However, in the present instance we have a new organization which is just taking form; in fact the very uncertainty and vagueness of the organization, in the minds of many members -and that is not said as a critical statement -is related to the fact that there are no separate items dealing with civil defence.
As the minister has indicated, by next year this will have taken form and there will be civil defence items. The point I make is that because this is a new branch of activity in the department, and because it does not appear under any separate item, the minister might now deal with it. May I suggest this does not apply to the general problem of defence, where we have been dealing with precisely the same organization, on a greater or smaller scale, for a great many years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman. The leader of the opposition and I are

in disagreement with the hon. member for Nanaimo. If you agree with the leader of the opposition and me, then I am prepared to proceed, as has been suggested-of course, if the committee consents.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask the
Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Defence if all the moneys to be expended for civil defence are to be voted under item 245. If they are, then I think it might be agreeable to the committee that we accept the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works, that the whole of item 245 be put before the committee.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not insist upon that.


Brooke Claxton: I do not think.the Minister of Public Works wanted that.


George Alexander Drew: No.


Brooke Claxton: He did suggest that this amount of $13,419,162 might be put forward, because we have been covering the ground with regard to civil defence and other matters, and it is up to the committee. They have not observed any agreement they have made so far, and no doubt will not in the future. I think the suggestions made by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I think supported by the leader of the opposition and others, with regard to how this should be discussed might be dealt with in that way.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I did not express myself correctly. I should not have said that the whole of item 245 should be put before the committee. What I meant was that the amount of $13,419,162 under the heading of "Defence services. Departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence" should be dealt with. That is what I meant.


George Alexander Drew: With deference I suggest that that will create confusion worse confounded. What has been suggested now as an attempt to bring together discussion on civil defence was that we discuss that one subject and dispose of it. But if we are going to deal with all the items that make up this $13,419,000 when we are discussing the whole range of civil defence through navy, army and so on in so far as headquarters is concerned, there would be no time that we would be away from civil defence. We would be creating further confusion. I do repeat the suggestion that we proceed with civil defence and then when the questions asked by hon. members who have questions to ask have been disposed of, civil defence would be disposed of.
Supply-National Defence
May I say most emphatically that there has been no repudiation of any agreement. The one thing that has been causing difficulty is the fact that we do not deal with these things in a way that makes it possible to discuss this one subject. If there is agreement that we discuss civil defence now, we shall be able to dispose of it. We did not have a general discussion of civil defence, as has been stated. The minister made a statement and replied to certain questions asked. It was then asked if we would go ahead with it and the minister of national health said it should not be proceeded with that night, but it would be dealt with when the first item was before us.
We have this item before us, as well as the different items in this first grouping. For that reason I think the only way we can do this in an orderly fashion is to say that we are going to deal with civil defence at this point. Then when civil defence has been disposed of there will be agreement to that effect and we can go on with a general discussion of national defence.


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition is in so friendly a mood that I do not want to differ with him. As reported on page 2928 of Hansard, I asked if the committee wanted to discuss civil defence, and the hon. member for Nanaimo said they did. The committee then went on to discuss civil defence for a good many pages of Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister turn to page 2941 of Hansard where it was stated we would take it up later?


Brooke Claxton: We took it up for almost the rest of the evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Look at page 2940 where it was agreed that we would take it up later on.


Brooke Claxton: That is all right. Do we take it up now as a general subject or under particular headings? I do not mind. I have been trying to work with the committee so as to make sure that hon. members have an opportunity to get every possible bit of information in the best possible order. We have had a general discussion on civil defence before; we have had another one tonight when we are supposed to be discussing civil salaries and wages, and we can go on and discuss civil defence and other items under each of the sub-titles on page 269. There are only four other important categories, so it is not a very important point. 1 agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and others who have taken part in this discussion that it would be a good thing if we got on with the operation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, may I remind you what did take place. As distinguished

Supply-National Defence from a discussion of the items, there was an extensive general review of the affairs of the Department of National Defence on one of the items. It was pointed out that civil defence was included in that item but was under another minister. It was suggested that it would be desirable to have a general review of civil defence at that time, and that was done. A statement was then made by the hon. member for Lanark and then there was some discussion as to when we would proceed again. It was at that time that the Minister of National Health and Welfare mentioned the figure of $4,196,202, but it was not indicated just where we could find those items. I am not suggesting that anything was being held back.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said plus other figures.


George Alexander Drew: Then the minister gave other figures, and then I made a short remark. I point out that this was some time after the general discussion to which the Minister of National Defence referred. I stated as reported on page 2941 of Hansard:
If that disposes of the review of civil defence at this stage, recognizing the item will of course come up again at a later point when it is called-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope not tonight.


George Alexander Drew: That, of course, is a matter of procedure. I wish to return to a discussion of the manner in which we are to deal with the estimates that are before us.
It was quite clear at that time that it was the intention to return to it. A number of members have indicated, that they wish to speak on this matter. I suggest that we can deal with it most effectively under this item concerning wages and salary. Then when the discussion of civil defence has been closed and there is agreement that it is closed-I am sure nobody is going to raise any question that it has been fully disposed of-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the wish of the committee that we deal now with the subject of civil defence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Generally?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The committee will have to agree to that. As far as I am concerned, what we are going to discuss is the money which is being voted for civil defence. If it is decided to open up again the general discussion of civil defence, I want to be clear on that. I do not know that I place the same interpretation as do some hon. members upon what is reported on page 2928 of Hansard, and the following pages. I note there that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asked to make a statement on civil defence. Then fallowed a general discussion pertaining to civil defence. The


hon. member for Lanark took part in that discussion, as did the hon. member for York South, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Kamloops. Then the committee discussed the procedure as to how they were going to study the particular items which appear on page 269.
The hon. member for Eglinton asks if we are going to discuss it generally. I would want to have some direction from the committee on that point. Do we re-open the general discussion on civil defence or do we study all the items pertaining to civil defence in a specific way?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would think that civil defence is one subject and that all hon. members should be free to ask any questions which they think are pertinent, whether it is called a general discussion or whatever you want to call it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask questions.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The committee has heard the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary East. If that is what members generally understand, is it agreeable that we proceed in that way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Coldwell:: On a point of order, is it not rather difficult to discuss civil defence without having the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare before us? I can see that you can have a very narrow discussion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not in welfare; it is all in defence.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no item in health and welfare?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in national defence. The transfer took place-


Major James William Coldwell: If that is the only one, the only thing to do is to allow a discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: To bring the matter to a head, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary East is satisfactory. If hon. members will put their questions, I will endeavour to deal with them as completely and as concisely as I can.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreeable to hon. members to proceed in this way?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply wish to offer this suggestion. We will be permitted to ask our questions but in all fairness we should not be deprived of the opportunity of making comments. The minister may make answers, but certainly hon. members should not be denied the opportunity of making comments

on the minister's answers in relation to this whole question of civil defence. That is not a question of opening up a general discussion. The general discussion came at page 2941 of Hansard where the minister suggested that it should not continue that night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us try to get on and see what happens.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am all for getting on with this, and frankly I thought I was on the right track some time ago, but I do not want another repetition of that experience. If there is a reasonable answer given to members-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very reasonable, so let us get on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and hon. members are permitted to make such comments as they feel it is their duty to make on whatever information is given to the house and on whatever discussion may arise, I do not think there will be time wasted. I do not think there will be a lot of time taken. I think we will get to the nub of the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let's go. Let us have the first question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member will agree that the chairman is always reasonable.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If we are going to discuss this matter in its entirety, as I presume we are now, I should like to say a few words with regard to the total. I tried to copy down the items as the minister read them. I seem to have missed a small item of $1,202, but the total amount is $5,096,202. According to the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other night the amount was $4,196,000. I have a discrepancy of $900,000. However, I want to deal with a point to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred a little while ago. Certain individuals within his department have been placed in civilian defence work. When that was done did their salaries continue under the Department of National Health and Welfare or are they included in the total of $5,096,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I can save time by saying no. I have already answered that. The officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare continue in that department. Their salaries are not transferred to this item.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is exactly what I thought the minister meant but I wanted corroboration because if these men and women, if there are such, are actively engaged now in the civilian defence program, and
Supply-National Defence their salaries are being charged to national health and welfare, then the amount of $5,096,000 does not constitute the total cost-


Murdo William Martin: Correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -allocated to civilian defence for this year.


Murdo William Martin: Correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How many of these individuals within the Department of National Health and Welfare are now engaged in civilian defence? That would be in addition to the number of eighty?


Murdo William Martin: Twenty-seven.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister has already explained that. There are twenty-seven.


Murdo William Martin: No, I said there are twenty-seven who have been transferred. Sixty were planned. I could not give the exact number in the Department of National Health and Welfare. There are quite a number of individuals with other functions who are carrying on civil defence work. The two deputy ministers have to spend quite a bit of their time on civil defence, particularly the deputy minister of welfare. Dr. Charron on the health side is doing some direct work in this field, and so are others. It would take quite a while to give the full list but I will say that their functions carry on into civil defence as well as into health and welfare.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can understand that certain officials, particularly in the higher executive brackets, would necessarily give a portion of their time to that work and still be occupied with their duties in national health and welfare. Are there any members of the staff of national health and welfare still continuing in the department 100 per cent of whose time is now given to civilian defence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not say 100 per cent but a great deal of their time.


Mr. Pouliot:: Do they wear a uniform?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can understand that there must be some confusion this year-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no confusion.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -as the department has probably not'been set up and the estimates cannot be split accordingly, but it would seem to me that where a major portion of a person's time is devoted to this new activity he or she should be transferred from the department so that we would have a proper picture.

Supply-National Defence


Major James William Coldwell: This illustrates what I referred to just now. There is no estimate as such for civil defence in the Department of National Health and Welfare but moneys are being spent by that department in connection with the civil defence program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it be possible for the minister to bring before the house a mimeographed statement of the moneys being expended on civil defence by the two departments so that we may have an estimate before us? As it is, there is just confusion at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with what my hon. friend is saying. At a quarter to ten that is the very thing I wanted to do acting upon the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary East, and I now propose to follow that course. As my hon. friend will note, the transfer of responsibilities from the Minister of National Defence to the Department of National Health and Welfare took place at a time after the estimates of the Department of National Defence had been formulated.


Major James William Coldwell: I know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That explains why we are operating in this quasi-dual position at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Jumbled position.


Murdo William Martin: The civil defence estimates, broken down by the usual primaries, are shown as my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence has indicated, and as I suggested the other night. Anticipated expenditures for the present year total $4,196,202. Because of the necessity of placing orders now for equipment or materials and supplies which will not actually be delivered or paid for until 1952 or 1953, authority is also being asked for permission to enter into commitments against funds for 1952-53 totalling $900,000, and against funds for 1953-44 totalling $1,822,500. That does not include all that is being spent on federal account for civil defence. As the hon. member for Hamilton West has properly indicated, certain officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare are engaged in a great many activities which under strict accounting would be charged to this particular division. Nor does it include the very significant sums of money that are being' spent by the provinces. Nor does it include the significant sums that are being spent by the municipalities. The hon. member for Nanaimo in making his criticism, quite properly from his point of view, said that he thought that the figure which had been given for civil 

defence in Canada was an unsatisfactory one. I can only say that if he will compare that figure with the figures now proposed in the United States for civil defence, and with the figures proposed and budgeted for in the United Kingdom for civil defence at the present time, he will find that we are by no means lagging behind in financial commitments for this purpose.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister give us those figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give the whole picture now that the question has been asked. I do not believe it is fair to the people of Canada to suggest that the determination of an adequate civil defence program represents the mere expenditure of dollars and cents. The only proper way in the long run to really provide for adequate civil defence in Canada is by recognition of the principle of mutual aid at the closest operational level, the municipality. That sort of thing is incalculable. If anyone thinks we are going to have an adequate civil defence program just by the expenditure of money, I would take strong issue with that point of view. All over this country organizations are developing composed of men and women many of whom are devoting a great deal of their leisure time to this work without any thought of reward or compensation. If it were possible to total all work of that kind the figure would certainly be much more impressive than it seems at first glance. I also want to say that if I came before this house with a figure on federal account that as much larger than the figure I have indicated, I know what hon. gentlemen opposite would say. They would criticize us for the unnecessary expenditure of money in a field where private voluntary effort can do so much.
These figures have been gone over with the provinces, with whom we had a meeting on February 23 under the chairmanship of my colleague the Minister of National Defence. At that meeting there was a very wide measure of agreement. Only last Friday I conferred with the minister responsible for civil defence in our largest and most thickly populated province, and I can say he and I are fully agreed on the common plans we are each pursuing. He knows the expenditures we are making; and while I would not go so far as to say he agreed with everything, I know he and I see eye to eye on this important matter. Tomorrow I am having a conference with the minister of welfare of Saskatchewan, who is in charge of civil defence for that province. While he thinks we should assume certain responsibilities in connection with their training schools, when we outline the division of responsibilities as

between the province and the dominion I am sure I would not do him an injustice if I said I am sure he would generally concur in the position we have taken.
The project we have in mind may be grouped under five general headings: purchase of equipment, purchase of material and supplies, construction of technical training schools, production of training aid pamphlets, and so on. Under the purchase of equipment $2,441,500 is being asked to cover expenditures this year, with an additional $650,000 commitment authority against 1952-53 funds and $1,072,500 against 1953-54 funds. That is subject to change depending upon the assessment we get from the only authoritative source, the chiefs of staff. The program can be accelerated, depending upon that advice. I am certain that as long as I am in charge of this difficult assignment I am not going to go ahead and build up an organization which in the event of disuse would rust and do more harm than good. I believe it is the feeling of those in charge of this work that we should be in a position to act in the light of the assessment we get as to probabilities, as to the state of international tension, and so on. We may make a big miscalculation; there can be no doubt of that possibility, but certain risks have to be taken in this matter. Those risks have to be borne not only by the armed forces but by everyone in Canada, for that is the nature of total war, and no minister of the crown or anyone else can alter that unfortunate fact.
The largest expenditure under this item is for fire-fighting equipment. We propose to spend $977,500 for such equipment this year. Actually we are now concluding an arrangement with the province of Ontario in respect of which we have signified our willingness and intention to provide something in the neighbourhood of $300,000, depending upon the presentation of details, to assist them in a program of standardization of hose couplings. That is a very important item in civil defence work, for the disaster that comes through fire is one of the most important considerations to be borne in mind. An amount of $300,000 in addition may be committed against next year's funds and $697,500 against the 1953-54 funds under the program of standardization of hose couplings; but that, too, depends on the ability of the fire chiefs and those in the provinces in charge of fire work generally to bring about a common standard in the use of hose couplings. We estimate that under this item $900,000 will be spent this year on this phase of the program. From conversations I have had with Sir John Hodsoll, the director of civil defence in Britain, and
Supply-National Defence with Governor Caldwell, his opposite number in the United States, that is an expenditure which in the light of their experience they regard as fundamental, and one of the initial expenditures that should be undertaken.
Another large item under this heading is radiation detection instruments, for which $962,000 will be spent this year with an additional $50,000 being ordered but paid for next year. The sum of $550,000 is required, we estimate, for medical equipment, $100,000 to be actually spent this year and orders placed for an additional $450,000 worth of equipment, approximately half of which will be delivered and paid for next year and the remaining half possibly in the ensuing year. That, too, is subject to acceleration, depending upon the appraisal we get from the responsible military authorities.
Other items being purchased and paid for this year under this heading are: sirens, $252,000; special rescue equipment, $35,000; certain vehicles, $45,000; training equipment, $10,000; communications equipment, $20,000.
That last item has an important relationship to the question put by the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the warning system, and I may as well deal with his question now. In connection with the warning system the plan is that we will be responsible for the warning to the municipality, but from then on the municipality will have to act in the light of that warning. I would not want to say the warning system is complete. It is by no means complete, but we are developing that system just as quickly as it is possible to do so.
Since April 1 orders have actually been placed for the following equipment: 70 radiation detection instruments, $11,515;	1,300
stirrup pumps at a cost of from $1.50 to $3.50 each, totalling $3,300;	10,000 steel
helmets at 80 cents each, $8,000; stretchers, $1,400; 500 suits of protective clothing, $1,750.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Did the radiation equipment total $11,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave the total as $962,000 to be spent this year.
Mr. Cold well: For what municipality are the stretchers being bought for which $1,400 is being paid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is not going to suggest by that good-humoured question that this is an attempt to provide stretchers for the whole country. He knows that is not the case.


Major James William Coldwell: What is it for, then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is for the training centres. If my hon. friend would come out with me tomorrow to the school at Connaught Ranges

Supply-National Defence he would see why we must have some stretchers available. Some of these stretchers will also be used at the school in Saskatchewan, at the school that is going to be established in British Columbia, and at the schools that are to be established in two other provinces. As to the equipment in the municipality, that will be provided by the municipality in accordance with arrangements made by the provinces following action to be taken by the Canadian Red Cross Society, and with the assistance that will be provided by the St. John Ambulance Corps, which are taking a great share of the load in the business of first aid training.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the
figures on steel helmets again?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; $8,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At how much?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ten thousand steel helmets
at 80 cents each. We are getting them at a bargain price. Now I will deal with the purchase of other material and supplies. $800,000 is requested to cover this year's expenditures on materials and supplies with an additional $250,000 commitment against next year's funds and a further three-quarters of a million-dollar commitment against 1953-54 funds.
The largest item under this heading is for clothing civil defence volunteers; approximately $400,000 is required this year and an additional $500,000 to be committed against 1953-54 funds.
To meet the cost of necessary stockpiling of medical supplies, to be carried out in conjunction with the armed services program, will require an expenditure this year of $250,000, with an additional $250,000 worth to be ordered this year and paid for out of future funds when deliveries can actually be made.
I hope I am not going into too much detail.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But rather than be criticized
for not giving enough, I propose to give the detail in extenso.
The sum of $75,000 will also be spent this year on the purchase of respirators with an additional $250,000 worth being ordered and paid for next year when deliveries can actually be made.
Other items under this heading, to be purchased and paid for this year, are:
Protective clothing, $10,000.
Gasoline, oil and lubricants, $4,000.
Catering for training school, $62,500.
On the production of training aids and pamphlets there will be spent this year $51,500 in accordance with the plans that we


have had as a result of our discussions with the provinces who regard that-and I think properly so for the most part-as our responsibility. In addition to the pamphlets that we are preparing, we will also have the use of pamphlets which have been prepared in the United Kingdom and in the United States and which have been re-adapted for use in this country.
We expect that $25,000 will be spent this year on the purchase of certain civil defence films. Two of them have actually been purchased and are being used for educational purposes. These films are not intended to provoke undue fear and panic but rather to indicate the kind of precautionary measures that can be taken by the civilian population in the event of the kind of disaster which none of us wishes to see happen.
Those figures will give an idea of the expenditures we propose to make this year. I can well understand the argument that might be made that this is not enough. All I can say is that in the light of the organization as it exists, in the light of the arrangements we have made with the provinces, and with the assumption by the municipalities all over this country of the responsibility that they are now assuming, we feel that this represents the wisest expenditure at this time. I can only say that a situation could arise whereby there would be an acceleration of that program, but that would depend on other non-existing circumstances.
I do not want to repeat the general outlines of our policy as given in my earlier statement. It seems to me that those principles will commend themselves to most reasonable people in this country. They represent a recognition of the federal character of this country, and of the impossibility of the central authority doing this job fully. The job is one for the provinces. It is one that must be carried on primarily in each municipality. The basis of the civil defence organization will be the voluntary effort that will be put into this matter, by the Canadian people. I can only say that, in the light of the situation as we see it, we will do everything that we can to give, in co-operation with the other two levels of government, a civil defence program as adequate as it is possible to give. From my contacts with authorities in the United States and with Sir John Hodsoll, the civil defence director in the United Kingdom, I have reason to believe that we are proceeding on sound lines.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was most interested in
listening to the minister's explanation and tO' the detailed information he has given with regard to the expenditures we are making

for civil defence. In particular he mentioned approximately $900,000 for the purchase of fire-extinguishing apparatus.


Murdo William Martin: Hose couplings.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, hose couplings. Suppose that there is a former soldier or officer who is put in charge of civil defence in any locality, and he wants to organize the protection of his municipality in case of an enemy attack. He may rely on the goodwill of the people of his community. Then I understand that the first thing he will have to do will toe to get in touch with the provincial minister who is supposed to be the contact man for the organization of civil defence. Is that right?


Murdo William Martin: That is correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: With regard to the amount, whatever it is, that is spent toy Ottawa for civil defence-$900,000 approximately for hose couplings, and all that-I understand that it will be given by Ottawa to the provinces; will it toe given by Ottawa to the various bigger municipalities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg, or will it
Supply-National Defence be given to the provincial authorities? It is nearly eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is past eleven.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope that the minister will be kind enough to give the information when the committee meets again.


Murdo William Martin: I will do that with great pleasure.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Agriculture.


George Alexander Drew: In what order?


Alphonse Fournier: We shall start with national defence.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Administrative Assistant	
Administrative Assistant (Audit Exam
iner)	
Administrative Officer Grade 1...
Administrative Officer Grade 2__
Administrative Officer Grade 3...
Administrative Officer Grade 4__
Administrative Officer Grade 5.... Administrative Officer Grade 6... Administrative Officer Grade 7... Administrative Officer Grade 8...
Assistant Deputy Minister	
Associate Deputy Minister	
Assistant Photographer	
Assistant Technician Grade 1....
Assistant Technician Grade 2....
Assistant Technician Grade 3....
Assistant Chief Inspector	
Chemist Grade 1	
Chemist Grade 2	
Chemist Grade 3	
Chemist Grade 4	
Chemist Grade 5	
Chief Clerk	
Clerk Grade 1	
Clerk Grade 2A	
Clerk Grade 2B	
Clerk Grade 3	
Clerk Grade 4	
Cleaner and Helper	
Clerk of Works Grade 1	
Co-ordinator of Works and Accommodation	
Confidential Messenger	
Controller General	
Departmental Accountant Grade 2	
Departmental Accountant Grade 8	
Departmental Accountant Grade 10....
Director of Public Relations	
Deputy Minister	
Departmental Solicitor Grade 1	
Draftsman Grade 1	
Draftsman Grade 2	
Engineer Grade 1	
Engineer Grade 2	
Engineer Grade 3	
Engineer Grade 4	
Executive Assistant to Minister of
National Defence	
Examiner Grade 1	
Examiner Grade 4	
Examiner Grade 5	
Financial Adviser Department of National Defence	
Head Clerk	
Information Officer Grade 3	
Information Officer Grade 4	
Inspecting Officer Grade 1	
Inspecting Officer Grade 2	
Inspector Grade 1	
Inspector of Stores Grade 1	
Inspector of Stores Grade 2	
Inspector of Stores Grade 3	
Inspector of Stores Grade 4	
Inspecting Officer Grade 3	
Junior Administrative Assistant	
-	Permanent	Temporary	Total	-$ (2772-3576)	i	6	7	$ 23,1845	9	14	37,800(3444-4212)	5	3	8	31,680(3768-4524)	2	1	3	12,816(4020-4836)	4	1	5	22,920(4584-5208)	3	-	3	15,624(4896-5520)	1	-	1	5,520(5208-6120)	2	1	3	17,820(5880-6780)	-	2	2	13,560(6480-7080)	1	-	1	7,080i	-	1	8,0002	-	2	20,000(2088-2436)	-	1	1	2,436(1560-2088)	-	14	14	26,376(2088-2436)	-	18	18	41,256(2436-2772)	-	11	11	28,908(5580-6180)	1	4	5	21,400(2700-3240)	-	9	9	27,324(2976-38881	-	6	6	22,176(3888-4524)	-	2	2	8,544(4272-4896)	-	3	3	13,968(4584-5208)	1	-	1	5,208(4212-4336)	2	-	2	9,432(1188-1668)	-	80	SO	120,000(1560-2088)	1	70	71	133,764(2028-2292)	5	71	76	169,632(2292-2568)	22	4S	70	245,2S0(2568-2904)	29	15	44	168,432(1812-2160)	-	1	1	2,160(2400-2700)	-	1	1	2,7001	1	8,000(2028-2292)	1	1	2	4,4641	-	1	12,000(3240-3576)	3	1	4	14,016(4896-5520)	1	-	1	5,520(5268-5880)	-	1	1	5,760(6180-6780)	-	1	1	6,7801	-	1	15,000(2976-3888)	1	-	1	3,888(2028-2832)	-	8	8	21,600(2700-3240)	-	2	2	6,216(2700-3240)	-	7	7	21,252(2976-3888)	-	11	11	40,656(3888-4524)	-	6	6	25,632(4272-4S96)	-	2	2	9,312-	1	1	5,600-	1	1	2,580-	11	11	31,200-	1	1	3,9401	1	6,480(3444-4080)	9	2	11	43,680(3576-4212)	1	-	1	4,212(3888-4524)	-	1	1	4,524(3576-4212)	-	14	14	55,440(3888-4524)	-	6	6	25,632(4584-5208)	-	7	7	34,692(2064-2496)	-	71	71	177,300(2568-2904)	-	161	161	450,740(2976-3444)	-	57	57	202,320(3444-3888)	2	13	15	55,440(4212-4836)	-	3	3	13,752(2436-2904) 1	-	1	1	2,904
APPENDIX-Cone.
CIVIL SALARIES AND WAGES-DEFENCE SERVICES-Cone.

[Stage Direction]
-	-	Permanent	Temporary	Total	-Messenger	s (1068-2028)	2	13	15	$ 33,480Office Appliance Operator Grade 1	(1188-1668)	-	15	15	22,500Office Appliance Operator Grade 2A	(1560-2088)	-	7	7	13,188Office Appliance Operator Grade 2B	(2028-2292)	1	1	2	4,524Office Appliance Operator Grade 3	(2292-2568)	-	2	2	4,892Office Boy	( 864-1056)	-	8	8	6,970Packer and Helper	(1812-2160)	3	13	16	32,448Principal Clerk	(2904-3444)	14	12	26	86,1121	1	4,500Special Adviser to the Minister of Nat-	2	9	9.n nonStaff Training Officer Grade 2	(3444-4212)	-	1	1	4,212Stenographer Grade 1	(1296-1668)	-	9	9	13,500Stenographer Grade 2A	(1668-2088)	-	26	26	48,984Stenographer Grade 2B	(2028-2292)	1	22	23	51,336Stenographer Grade 3	(2292-2568)	7	14	21	52,416Storeman Grade 1	(2088-2436)	1	4	5	11,460Storeman Grade 2	(2436-2772)	-	2	2	5,400Stores Assistant Grade 2	(1560-2088)	1	4	5	9,960Supervising Clerk	(3444-3768)	-	1	1	3,768Student Assistant	(1320-1680)	-	12	12	20,160Technical Officer Grade 2	(2904-3576)	-	12	12	39,744Technical Officer Grade 3	(3576-4212)	-	1	1	4,080Technical Officer Grade 4	(3888-3524)	-	3	3	13,212Technical Officer Grade 5	(4272-4896)	-	1	1	4,656Technician Grade 1	(2772-3108)	1	10	11	33,396Technician Grade 2	(2904-3240)	1	13	14	44,352Technician Grade 3	(3240-3576)	-	6	6	21,024Technician Grade 4	(3576-3888)	-	1	1	3,828Typewriter Inspector and Repairman	(2160-2580)	-	2	2	5,040Typist Grade 1	(1188-1668)	-	40	40	60,000Typist Grade 2A	(1560-2088)	-	36	36	67,824Typist Grade 2B	(2028-2292)	6	18	24	53,568Typist Grade 3	(2292-2568)	1	-	1	2,568X Ray Operator Grade 1	(2088-2436)	-	1	1	2,436X Ray Operator Grade 2	(2436-2772)	-	1	1	2,772Total	149	1081	1230	3,393,842

[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Permanent
[Stage Direction]
Temporary
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Carpenter
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Charwoman
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
Chauffeur
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
Electrician
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
Fitter Machinist
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Labourer
[Stage Direction]
25
[Stage Direction]
25
[Stage Direction]
Motor Truck Driver
[Stage Direction]
i
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Production and Packaging Manager
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
Toolmaker
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
i
[Stage Direction]
39
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
Total Cost
[Stage Direction]
S 96,000
[Stage Direction]
Total Administration
[Stage Direction]
5 3,489,842
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 25, 1951